No ex­pi­ra­tion date?

The Washington Post Sunday - - SUNDAY OPINION - Ralph Dannheisser, Sil­ver Spring

On Jan. 27, when Pres­i­dent Trump is­sued an ex­ec­u­tive or­der bar­ring is­suance of visas to ci­ti­zens of sev­eral ma­jor­ity-Mus­lim coun­tries for 90 days, he said it was vi­tally needed to per­mit de­vel­op­ment of stronger vet­ting pro­ce­dures dur­ing that time pe­riod.

Courts blocked im­ple­men­ta­tion of that or­der, and so the pres­i­dent has now is­sued a new one, mod­i­fied from the orig­i­nal in sev­eral re­spects [“Re­vised travel ban blocks new visas,” front page, March 7]. The new ban, like the old, is to be ef­fec­tive for 90 days, this time start­ing from the im­ple­men­ta­tion date of March 16.

But 48 days will have passed be­tween en­act­ment of the two or­ders. Shouldn’t that mean that only 42 more days are needed to de­velop the new vet­ting reg­i­men and that the clock should not, in­stead, start fresh with an­other 90?

Or did the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion do noth­ing in the in­ter­ven­ing time to­ward de­vel­op­ing a new vet­ting pro­ce­dure — some­thing the pres­i­dent in­sists is ur­gently needed to save us all from ter­ror­ist at­tack? More likely, does it mean that he never in­tended the travel ban to ex­pire after 90 days at all?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.