No, the nuclear option won't be exercised, but wouldn't it be fun if it were?

/

international non-arrivals : adds new meaning to “terminal”

As I understand it, without customs cooperation it will not be possible for international flights to land in any sanctuary city–or, I assume, any sanctuary state. I am not sure whether the new policy would impact takeoffs.

If implemented, it would mean that international flights could not land in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Newark, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle or San Francisco. If sanctuary states are banned, those would include all airports in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The disruption to international travel would be immense. The relatively few major airports where customs would still be available would be swamped with arrivals and perhaps departures, which would snarl international travel for the foreseeable future.

Or maybe the ploy would work, and sanctuary cities and states would reverse their policies. But in some instances, that likely would need to await next year’s legislative session.

Is this policy a bridge too far, or is the administration finally doing something to make scofflaw Democrats feel the pain? And will the announced policy, as described, actually go into effect?

Stay tuned.

Ain’t gonna happen, but as I said, the howls of outrage and the ensuing chaos would be fun to watch.