[B4Ranch]

>>Almost every public figure appraising Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration and travel to the U.S. has reacted with horror, <<

And my question to them is, "Have you accepted money from Saudia Arabia?"

[annieokie]

TO TOP SCHOLERS.....hey, snowitssnot.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Top Scholars Say Trump Muslim Immigrant Ban May Be Constitutional

Some disagree.

Headlines from around the world ^* Dec, 2015:

Followers of Hitler's Nazi Party Sue U.S. in World Court
Denied constitutional rights to enter U.S. during W.W.II and kill Americans, claim plaintiffs

. . .

Despite Justice Robert H. Jackson's 1949 claim..
The Constitution is a Suicide Pact, Say Trump Republican Opponents

. . . .

^* :)

[laplata]

Immigration and Nationality act of 1952:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

[Mariner]

Of course it's Constitutional.

It's also LEGAL under current Immigration law.

It's also supported by a Majority of the American People.

And, the entire GOP is united against it, showing their true colors.

But, I predict, a majority of GOP House members will support this position by January.

And, a majority of Senators running for reelection, both Dim and GOP, will also support it before their primary comes along.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What some see as discrimination others see as just having a working brain and a desire to survive.

[euram]

Of course it’s legal.

All those fuming about what Trump has proposed should be confronted with the fact that Israel keeps Muslims out, controls its borders with fences, soldiers and walls, why aren’t we allowed to do the same thing? If the US is racist for evening mentioning such a solution, isn’t Israel also racist? Then make them defend their attacks on Trump while at the same time defending Israel. That would be something worth seeing.

[RickGee]

According to Ann Coulter today, after Iran took over our embassy, Carter sent Iranian students in the US packing. She also said it was Okayed by the courts. I don’t have any problem blocking muslims. I’ve read that Obama’s been blocking Christian refugees with little notice and once blocked Iranians for six months (don’t remember why) or was that Iraqis?

Anyway, Trump’s not my man; but at least he’s bringing up an idea that could be done and should be discussed. There’s no reason that it would be unconstitutional.

[SMARTY]

‘MAY’ be?

What?

We’re no longer a sovereign national entity?

[MNJohnnie]

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[RummyChick]

So the Speaker of the House said it would be unconstitutional. Maybe he should shave his beard to help him think better.

[RummyChick]

There have been cases before SCOTUS where they have said it is okay to discriminate based on sex. Mothers had different requirements than fathers.

[RetSignman]

Panic, gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair ensues at Fox Network.

[RightOnTheBorder]

The constitution is not a terribly complicated document. It has taken decades of “top scholars” to twist it into the current interpretation. In a plain reading I can think of nothing in the constitution that prohibits us from imposing a religious litmus test on immigrants. From the comments of these “top scholars” neither can they.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

I swear, every time the Trumpinator takes on an issue and the p#%syfied media pees their panties I have to step away from my keyboard. Got to go make popcorn.

Nom nom nom nom.

This election cycle is just plain fun. Neither of my favorite candidates are out, and they seem to be colluding.

[unlearner]

We ought to prohibit Saudis from funding the building of mosques.

We could use the standards of the country of origin as a guideline for who to allow in.

How many Christian churches do they have in their country?

[Jim Noble]

This is so obviously “constitutional”, I don’t know how anyone minimally familiar with the Constitution could ever think otherwise.

[exit82]

From Twitter:
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour ago
A very big poll is coming out at 6 PM in New Hampshire. Will be very interested in the results.

[Amendment10]

"Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman, co-director of the school s human rights program, says the idea is “discriminatory in a fashion that s totally inconsistent with constitutional principles.”"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument

To begin with, although Trumps heart is certainly in the right place for the nation, constitutionally low-information Trump is probably clueless, as all the candidates probably are imo, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.

More specifically, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had clarified that only the states have the 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate immigration. So immigrants have only those protections afforded to them by the states imo, not the Constitution.

And not only have the feds unconstitutionally exercised 10th Amendment-protected state power to refuse immigrants for various reasons as indicated in the OP, but before the states began letting the feds manage immigration without properly amending the Constitution to delegate such power to the feds, note that the states have historically had discriminatory immigration policies. (Send Irish Catholics back to Ireland for example.)

So contrary to what the Constitution-ignoring feds are hypocritically arguing about Trumps immigration policies ”probably” being unconstitutional, as more evidence that the states can discriminate against immigrants on various criteria, note that only US citizens are protected by the Constitutions privileges and immunities as evidenced by the following excerpts from official sources.

• 14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

• "Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added], as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe

• ” 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship [emphasis added] before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.” - Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

[odawg]

I am not a top scholar. But I can read, and Trump’s ban is definitely Constitutional.

I also know what the word “infringe” means, as in “shall not be”.

[pa_dweller]

Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman, co-director of the school s human rights program, says the idea is 'discriminatory in a fashion that s totally inconsistent with constitutional principles.'

Principles schminciples. Notice he doesn't claim it's unconstitutional.

The question is: Does or does not a sovereign nation have the power to set its own laws and determine who will or will not be permitted to enter?