A former Bush-era official warns that a new Department of Homeland Security rule could have devastating consequences, while criticizing the government’s justification for it as legally and logically flawed. The critique highlights a sharp divide between the potential severity of the policy’s effects and the shaky grounds on which it rests. Legal and procedural concerns loom large as the rule faces scrutiny over its sweeping implications. The analysis raises questions about whether the administration’s approach is justified by the evidence—or driven by broader political or enforcement priorities.
Although the impact of the DHS rule "is likely to be catastrophic," a George W. Bush appointee writes, the government's rationale is "exceptionally weak."
