March 06, 2017

#KhizrKhan — what's really up?

Khizr Khan and wife Ghazala.
As of this moment, it's his word that unnamed US officials have put his travel privileges "under review" vs. some facts that lead me to wonder if he might not be engaging in self-martyrdom or other puffery.

First, per Raw Story, an unnamed spokesperson from Customs and Border Protection says that the US doesn't contact citizens, or noncitizen residents, before they leave the country to warn about travel privileges being "under review."

Sounds right to me. Even at the heart of the early post-9/11 days under BushCo, I never heard of such a thing. (We're ultimately at he-said, she-said on that.)

Second, per The Week, Trump's latest travel ban executive order does not affect either residents of Pakistan or American citizens. Khan is a naturalized citizen and a native of Pakistan. Yes, Muhammad Ali Jr. faced his own problems with Customs two weeks ago, though CPB says there was no religious angle.

Third, the WaPost reminds us that American citizens don't need visas to enter Canada. Post 9/11, they do need a passport to return, but that's all.

It's really hard in general, in fact, to figure out how much of the new barrage of complaints against Customs is real, and grounded, how much is semi-real, but still within its traditional scope of operations, and how much is groundless. Per the Wiki page about the two Khans, if he wanted to exploit the current environment, he could.

So, who knows?

Third option is that some Customs employee said this, but it was purely personal, or even "having fun." I think we've already had indications that such things are more likely in a Trump Administration than otherwise. (That said, the previous administration saw individuals in political-appointment post surf through IRS returns, so again, this is not unique to Trump.)

A fourth option is it was an anonymous wingnut claiming to be an immigration lawyer.

In any case? Stay tuned.

As for people who say, "But he wouldn't do that," how do you know?

At the same time, he has, per the Federal Elections Commission, made no campaign donations to any candidate in his past. And, in case you're wondering, here is the actual background of how he came to speak at the DNC last year. And, while he may have helped on an immigration case on occasion, even someone as mainstream and inside-the-Beltway as Politico gets it wrong in another area. He may be a lawyer, but, per his own website, he is NOT an immigration lawyer.

Update: Mic notes that some Americans who have been signed up for the Global Entry program, a program supposed to expedite re-entry into the country, have had their membership in it revoked. On that basis, The Daily Beast asked Khan if this was the reason for his decision — and he no-commented the mag.

Again, he could cite outside legal counsel, or something, as the reason for the no-comment. But, he didn't. If Khan wants to end this speculation, all he has to do is speak.

It's also "interesting" that this news, whatever the cause, came up just a day before his conference.


This is even as Jonathan Turley joins other lawyers of mainstream right, center and liberal in saying that Jeff Sessions did NOT commit perjury.

The bottom line again, is that "resist" should be done only to things we know Trump has done. And it also means calling out Democrats for hypocrisy, when they talk about "resisting" some actions of Trump that are indeed, what he at times correctly claims — extensions of what Obama did.

No comments: