In a truly shocking and facially unconstitutional plan, Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump is calling for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. The plan would violate a host of domestic and international protections, as I discussed today with the Washington Post.
Trump stated that “[i]t is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why, we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”
Trump said he would ease the ban in the case of Muslims serving in the U.S. military and allow them to return home. that is still well short of constitutional — or rational — plan. For Muslim citizens, such a plan would be grossly unconstitutional under the first and fifth amendments. The latter prohibits The depriving of individuals of “life, liberty, or property,” without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
It is certainly true that the constitutional protections often turn on whether someone is consider a “person” under the United States Constitution. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute denying funding for education to unauthorized immigrant children. Being present within the United States does afford protections of due process and equal protection. Outside of the country immigrants without resident status face a more difficult challenge. However, international law and conventions afford protections for travel and religion.
The law would harken back to the disgraceful period of the Chinese Exclusion laws. We have long rejected immigration limits based discriminatory classes of this kind. Indeed, the Immigration and Nationality Act protects potential refugees facing “fear of persecution” on account of their “religion.” Yet under President Trump we would now formally impose such a discriminatory element, a move that would make the United States a pariah around the world and immediately extinguish our relations with Islamic countries.
Immigration policy has cleared resonated as a draw for Trump. However, this proposal would openly embrace raw prejudice and blind rage as motivating factors for governmental policy. It would clearly fail in denying reentry for citizens or residents. As for non-citizens abroad, they are accorded protections under international law. Under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, people have the right to leave or enter a country and that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” There is no doubt murky aspects to such rights and a long-standing question of their enforceability. However, this proposal rests on flagrant religious discrimination against one group. It seeks to “protect” the United States by denying the very essence of who we are as a nation.
Vote for me!! And be afraid!! Pay no attention to the man behind the Orange Hair.
What Jeff wrote.
Prof Turley writes that Trump’s call to prohibit temporarily ingress of Muslims as a “facially unconstitutional plan.”
Trump’s an idiot hack and a fascist who earned his money the old-fashioned way: Daddy gave it to him. He’s received way too much attention as it is by stirring up dust for 20% of the Republican Party.
That said, I agree that the plan would be facially unconstitutional if it prevented US citizens who are Muslim from entering. However, I don’t know that it would be unconstitutional to prevent non-citizen Muslims from entering because Congress has plenary power over immigration which power time and again has superseded any fundamental rights of US citizens, let alone those of non-citizens. And I don’t know that Korematsu ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States ), et al., is precedent because that set of facts took place during wartime, let alone that SCOTUS affirmed the constitutionality of FDR’s Executive Order. I’m obviously not a constitutional law expert, however, and I’d be interested in any input from the attorneys and constitutional law aficionados on the list.
Donald Trump is an idiot. His ego is so big it has excluded any sense of reason from his head. He believes he can say or do anything and get away with it. He has lost all touch with reality.
Believing in conspiracies that would have taken literally hundreds of thousands of conspirators is insane. Believing that the US government is the right hand of the devil is insane. And frankly, in my opinion, belief in an unprovable absent supernatural being is insane. We have lost all reason and independent rational thinking in this country.
I am a liberal/socialist atheist and I vote every chance I get. You can smoke that Lisa N.
I think that support for Trump is a vote on established politicians. People are disgusted with politicians, empty promises, and lies.
I do not believe Trump would make a good President, nor would I vote for him. I believe his value lies in being non-PC, much as Bill Maher. They both make outrageous statements with which I disagree, but they do get people talking about issues, stomping on eggshells as they go.
We cannot close entry to any religion, unless a particular denomination is a terrorist organization. For example, if someone forms a religion whose main premise is “Death to America in the name of God”, then, yes, they would be banned from entry. Technically, ISIS would be a religious cult whose main function is terrorism and world domination in the name of their religion, and they are banned.
Of course, we can not, nor should not, bar Muslims from immigrating here. But we can bar those with extremist, radical views as belonging to terrorist subsets of that faith. We can bar those coming from regions heavily infested with terrorists, allowing entry on a careful, case by case basis.
I am curious what our current immigration policy is on radical views. Are those questions asked in the interviews? Do they preclude someone from immigrating? Does belonging to a radicalized mosque or having terrorist ties not matter at all if the visa is a finance or spouse?
I don’t give a rats azz if it violates any international law, someone needs to protect the citizens of the United States because our incompetent president isn’t capable of it.
We need to stop them from coming in, until the Muslim community publicly stands up against these heinous acts and turns in their Muslim brothers who mean us harm.
GO DONALD TRUMP!
Some politicians call people like me an idiot but I’m a idiot with a vote!! So smoke that you accomplice kumbya liberals!
I think Congress can limit to zero the number of people coming in from an area.
There are many philosophies, ideologies, creeds, that advocate attacks on others, including whatever creed or ideology is followed by the US military and CIA , inner city gangs, racist organizations, political organizations. Are we going to outlaw all creeds and philosophies that advocate attacks on others for any reason, including self-defense, which Muslims believe they are engaging in?
Think the US doesn’t meddle in religion? Think again. Listen today to David Wemhoff at the National Press Club discuss the CIA, time/life’s Henry Luce, John Courtney Murray, and how they covertly influenced Catholic Doctrine in the 50s and 60s. Add “doctrinal warfare” to your strategic lexicon folks.
JT – “Yet under President Trump we would now formally impose such a discriminatory element, a move that would make the United States a pariah around the world and immediately extinguish our relations with Islamic countries.”
What relations are we talking about? I’m to the point where I could care less about our relations with Islamic countries.
Also, being able to discriminate is the basis of freedom. I filter the air I breath when I’m in a dangerous environment. They have turned the world into a dangerous environment so it’s time to our filter.
Trump’s a smart guy and he knows many, many people have this desire. He certainly knows it’s unconstitutional and perhaps so do the people but the point is to win over voters who have not yet decided on him. He’ll back away from this but he will have already gotten what he wanted. Support.
Right now Trump is selling what people want and it does not matter if he can produce it.
Ralph Adamo- speaking of Muslims never doing anything to advance humanity you obviously never heard of the Moors who were of Islamic faith yet brought astronomy, arithmetic and hygienic advances to Spain which spread through other parts of Europe during the Middle Ages. They were moderate Muslims who allowed Christians and Jews to still practice their faith. That is why there is a need for our differentiation of extremists from moderates. You wouldn’t want the likes of the klan or westboro baptist church representing all Christians now would you? Islam exists in Indonesia, Malaysia, China and much of the world in high numbers. Not just the Middle East. We must be sensible but not lose ourselves fighting extremism.
Amid all the hogwash there are some relevant comments above. I like the word Islamicpandering. Can someone define what a Prophet is? I employ the capital letter P to give it high meaning. And is a pedophile sinonymous with a prophet. Or is it different strokes for different folks?
Religion is the opiate of the people. The world is full of addicts. Those who can: do. Those who can’t: preach.
That devil may freak you out but the devil is in the details.
One point made above. Non citizens of the U.S. have no citizenship rights. If our government wants to deny the right to enter then our government has that right. It is a power not a right. Rights belong to humans and only to some. Our constitution puts power into the hands of government and rights into the arses of humans who are citizens of the U.S. To say that our government can only deny the ability to enter to some one based on their origin place rather than their religion is sort of Dan Ratherish. We can deny entry to all Muslims whether from Syria or Pakistan or Saudi and we can deny entry to any and all humans or dogs. Give more credence to dogs. Few are Muslims. If you see a headscarf on a dog it was compelled.
If The Donald would have elaborated I think he would have expressed the muslim proposition like this. First deny entry to any human who is from a pirate territory or muslim so called nation state and to all muslims. Second, within a few months complete the building of that Wall. Third, put muslims who desire entry on a shit list and screen them in another place on Earth. No mth,ore Ellis Island. Fourth, set up a criteria for denial. If no history of the person then deny. If history of internet yak with ISIL then arrest. Send to Gitmo. If they wash up on shore like they do in Greece then go sink the ship they swam in from.
Mister Obama: Build Up That Wall! Do it now. Be square or be there. All American Lives Matter. Non American lives do not matter when it comes to immigration. Dont give us any more tire, poor or huddled masses. We have enough Sunday masses as it is.
Mister Trump: elaborate.
BTW, that devil is freaking me out.
The U.S. Constitution protects only AMERICAN citizens and residents. Foreign citizens who wish to immigrate to the U.S. do not have ANY rights under the U.S. Constitution. It is completely inapplicable to them. So if any foreignor is denied entry to the U.S. for ANY reason, his Constitutional rights have not been violated, as he has no Constitutional rights to begin with.
As far as immigration to the U.S., that is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This 50 year old piece of legislation is long-overdue for an undate to reflect the current needs of the U.S. for a limited number of immigrants with needed eskills who are capable of rapid assimilation.
PaulH, You could cut down to zero, the immigrants coming from a certain country. But, it could not be based on religion.
I have a question, Who controls the number of immigrant from each country per year? It would seem to me whoever that controlling force is, would have the right to decrease the number, even down to zero.
This country has been primed for a demagogue for some time now. Who knew it would be a buffoon, Reality TV bozo? Of course this is both unconstitutional and idiotic. However, demagogues always touch a nerve. The nerve this guy touches is immigration and the political establishment. The people who support Trump are more angry @ Republicans than they are Obama.
All this said, what prompted this most outrageous comment was the condescending, didactic speech of Obama. He keeps telling us what ISIS wants us to do. ISIS HATES US. There is NOTHING we can do that will change that, absent maybe all converting to Islam. He says ISIS wants us to send troops. A leader would put together an overwhelming NATO force and teach ISIS the western axiom, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Reblogged this on L'horreur islamique à l'âge des ténèbres ن and commented:
BRAVO !!! We need Trump in Europe !
We know Israel & American Traitors did 9/11
A politician’s position on the official 9/11 story is a litmus test
If he or she states that they believe the official story they are stupid and corrupt
The state of Israel, Zionist Jews are the Enemies of any real American
Russia Today Declares ‘9/11 Was An Inside Job’
We cannot trust our U.S. media
https://youtu.be/-ugCIjzHptA