Posted on 12/20/2015 3:41:46 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Ever since Trump proposed a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration, he has come under fire from both sides of the aisle, who are claiming it could never work because it is "unconstitutional." Well, several respected law professors have something to say about this that is sure to spark even more controversy. You have to love it!
Many critics of Trump and his 'Muslim ban' have labeled it as bigoted and racist, and have called the plan unconstitutional and against the law.
Some argue that the First Amendment prohibits the government from using religious affiliations as criteria for allowing in immigrants. That is false.
Others say that foreign nationals have no Constitutional rights. That is true.
But now, two of the most highly respected, prominent legal scholars in our country have weighed in, and the Islamo-sympathizers aren't going to like what they have to say.
According to the Daily Caller, Jan C. Ting from Temple University and Eric Posner from the University of Chicago both gave their legal opinion of the moratorium and according to them, the people criticizing Trump have no idea what they're talking about, and over a hundred years of legal precedent backs Trump’s plan.
"No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional," Ting told TheDC. "The U.S. government can exclude a foreign national on any basis."
"The statutes are clear: immigration is different from all other aspects of the law," said Ting, who noted that it would be "unlikely" for the Court to reverse 100 years of legal history and grant Constitutional rights to foreigners. "The Supreme Court has ruled we can enact laws against foreign nationals that would not be permissible to apply to citizens. The courts historically have no role in these decisions."
More from the Caller:
He said that the courts have upheld this arrangement as recently as 2015 and that major cases — such as the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirming the constitutionality of then-President Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants in 1980 — have hewed to the viewpoint that Congress and the president can exclude foreigners on any possible basis from America.
The Temple professor specifically cited the ability for the government to discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity when it comes to immigration — pointing out that it happens "everyday."
…
Ting also brought up the 1972 Supreme Court case affirming the right of the government to exclude a Belgian Marxist writer from the country due to his intellectual beliefs and which could be precedent applied to those adhering Islamic fundamentalism.
Sean Brown at Mad World News adds that the fourth most-cited legal scholar in the country, Eric Posner, agrees with Ting as well. Posner said that "constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants," and he added the moratorium was "probably not" unconstitutional.
According to Posner, who opposes Trump's moratorium on moral grounds but said that legally, it would be allowed, all Trump would have to prove is that followers of the Muslim faith pose a threat to America. Posner believes that Trump wouldn't have an issue proving his case from a legal perspective and noted that he wouldn't need permission from Congress if he was able to do so.
So, as we continue to hear the constant back and forth over the moratorium and people screaming at the top of their lungs that it would be unconstitutional, it appears just the opposite is true. Two legal scholars, both from liberal backgrounds, said that Trump would be well within his rights to enact such a ban. Short of the Supreme Court making a ruling on the matter, I would say that pretty much settles this debate. Wouldn’t you?
But haven’t the courts ruled that once a person gets into the country, even if they are illegally here they still have ALL the rights of citizens?
But haven’t the courts ruled that once a person gets into the country, even if they are illegally here they still have ALL the rights of citizens?
Good post anyway
And completely impossible to accomplish.Why? Because you can't think of a way to do it?
A certain amount of due process — too much IMHO — but not all of the rights. For instance and as a trivial example, they cannot vote. Unless they are in Chicago where even the dead vote.
Can you?
Bwahahaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Merry Christmas!
The lefty NY Times said it was legal, at the time that Trump proposed it, even though the editorial writers didn’t like the proposal. The Times’ legal analysis was much the same as that of the lawyers quoted above - so this is nothing new.
If this is a “bombshell” to you, you are a complete moron.
It’s not simply that Trump’s opposition has no idea what they’re talking about, it’s that they are so far from caring what the Constitution says that they’ll make up any feel-good, hateful, or awful-sounding reason they can imagine to attack him.
They’re figuratively flinging excrement at the wall, hoping against hope that something will stick. Certainly with the media moderating so much of the discussion for so many brain-dead idiots, they’ve been successful far more often in the past than are deserved by the merits of any of their arguments. Now their superstitious depraved cravings pass for the Left’s score-keeping and presumed victories.
When the Left can get a Lefty political appointee as a judge for their case, that’s as good as a meritorious victory for the them—even better.
HF
.
I think most here already know this.
“Can you?”
Yes, I can?
L
That’s not nice.
As much as the media has been foaming at mouth about this, it’s good we’re being alerted to more “experts” stating publicly that it is constitutional.
A President’s number one job is protecting the country and it’s CITIZENS and Obama is doing the complete opposite
I just had a hunch Trump consults his legal team everytime before making any earth shaking announcement.
The leftist media and RINO’s had immediate knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s temporary ban on non-US-citizen Muslims entering US, using constitution as excuse. Have you noticed the lefties never use the constitution when trying to control guns?
After a week of non-stop calling Trump’s plan unconstitutional the media and left have backed off of that claim and just sticking to: mean, racist, xenophobic, etc.
It always comes down to feelings, not facts.
Of course, the proposals might well be ‘mean’ and ‘unfair’. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do them.
The main point is that it is OUR country and people enter it at OUR sole discretion, just like other countries set their own immigration and visa policies. For what reason is the USA different than other sovereign countries.
If you listen to the media/left, everyone on the entire planet is a de facto American citizen, possessed of a full compliment of US Constitutional rights. No matter how you slice it, even if you are in favor of more refugees or whatever, that view point is just INSANE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.