Law Professors Drop MASSIVE BOMBSHELL About Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/12/20/law-drop-trumps-ban/# ^ | December 20, 2015 | Dean James

[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?

[Aleya2Fairlie]

Thanks! You would think that the (dis)honorable Senator Mitch McConnell would know that. He’s bragging that Congress would never act on such a proposal. His blatant statement just proves that he thinks Congress is a law unto itself.

[piytar]

We don’t need to, Leni. It has become very clear over the last few years that all of those people either lurk here or have staff who lurk here.

[huldah1776]

Good story. I love hearing about the different ways God parts the waters.

[conservative98]

He sure does turn out to be right a lot.

[West Texas Chuck]

I mean, what’s to lose? I’d shut it all down, it ain’t “immigration” it is a bloody invasion. And our Feral Goobermint is all in, yuck yuck.

[SamuraiScot]

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?

Depends on whether the person's name is Elian Gonzales.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Oreilly’s a pinhead and nothing more.

[spintreebob]

Constitution is very clear. Rights come from God/natural law and are possessed by humans. Privileges come from man. Government has the power to grant and deny privileges.

The 14th amendment carefully and self-consciously defines citizenship to specify that all citizens have equal protection of the law..that is.. equal access to privileges. But non-ciizens clearly do not have equal protection of the law.

So non-citizens have the right to life, religion, speech, assembly, press, etc. But non-citizens do not have the right to have those rights in the US. It is a privilege to exercise them in the US. It is a privilege that the government can grant or revoke as it pleases.

Then the question arises as to the role of each part of government in granting and revoking privileges.

For example, Pre-Nixon local law enforcement had the primary role in deportation of immigrants and could do so with little or no involvement of INS (now ICE). But Nixon unilaterally centralized immigration enforcement in the INS and neutered local law enforcement.

[moehoward]

“Trump needs to ram this down stupid O’Reilly’s throat. “

---

And Bill’s response can be seen coming a mile away. Same thing too many FReepers say. ACLU/immigration lawyers blah blah blah.

File away enablers. You can update your clients case progress while they are back home.

[House Atreides]

And someone please tell the idiot Turtleman Mitch McConnell that the Commander in Chief already has the power (granted him by Congress’ longstanding legislation) to enclude ANY GROUP OR TYPE OF IMMIGRANT if he/she (and the President has SOLE authority to make this call, without restriction, under current legislation) determines it’s in the national interest.

President Trump (or President Cruz) would NOT have to go to the Senate (and Turtleman Mitch) to say “mother, may I?” to take said action!

[Jane Long]

Hah! Trump is RIGHT again!!!!

---

^^ THAT ^^

[House Atreides]

Hah! Trump is RIGHT again!!!!
...............................
^^ THAT ^^
*******************************************************************************
Yes, he is. And Turtleman McConnell is, once again, irrelevant. The pompous little twerp!

[torqemada]

>>Short of the Supreme Court making a ruling on the matter, I would say that pretty much settles this debate. Wouldn’t you?<<

And, even The Court does make a contrary ruling, they have no enforcement power. Trump could choose to ignore it. Many Presidents in history have nullified Supreme Court edicts simply by ignoring them. Something I learned in a Constitutional Law class in college...

[colo_kid]

Where’s that good old American can-do spirit?

[onyx]

Trump is right (again)!

[VeniVidiVici]

What idiot, besides a left-wing one, would think that such a ban would be “unconstitutional”?

As if they follow the constitution anyway.

[Senormechanico]

I DO like WattersWorld though...
Bill can go suck an egg most of the time.

[higgmeister]

I don't think he needs to "prove" anything. All he has to do is declare that they are a threat and announce his total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country.

Of course then he needs to go and figure out how to do that. I don't think he's thought that far ahead.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Codified into law:

U.S. Code - Title 8 - Chapter 12 - Subchapter II - Part II - § 1182

(f) 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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

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

[blueyon]

Hope someone in Trumps campaign sees this

[higgmeister]

DDawg, that sounds like The President Trump can have his Attorney General, Trey Gowdy, shut down Airline flights if they will not comply.