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?
O’really gives his viewers a bath in condescension.
I imagine those viewers he has left are mouth breathers.
I mean, what self respecting American is going to stand by for an hour of self aggrandizement all wrapped in his cram down styled opinions that parallel the Establishment anyway?
Common sense has been in short supply for some time.
Thanks to TRUMP, men are back, and thinking again, and so comes the return of common sense.
It's very impolite to jump on the original poster for posting the original headline. It's what we're supposed to do.
Of course its not unconstitutional. The Immigration law has been posted ad nauseum on FR for a week or more.
Of course its not unconstitutional. The Immigration law has been posted ad nauseum on FR for a week or more.
“O Really has been a non favorite for about 10 yrs. Maybe more, I don’t remember when I last turned him off.”
The MSM suffers from the same disfunctionallity as the Congress, namely people in their jobs far too long! O’Gasbag crows about his fifteen years “before the mast,” like it’s something of which we all should be proud, when in truth, he should have been replaced at least ten years ago. Like Congressmen and Senators, who “stay in office far too long,” so too it is for “news readers.” They begin to believe that they are some sort of “transformational icon” to whom we should all bow, simply because of their longevity. They all come out of the same pile of crap.
And that is why we are perpetual losers Dawg.
my comment wasn’t aimed at OP. Only to stupid people that ever thought Trumps proposal bag constitutional difficulties.
Watters got back at arrogant billy a few times last nite. It was great.
Bookmark
“Of course then he needs to go and figure out how to do that.”
I think the way he implements it includes: if someone slips through the visa award process, that government bureaucrat and family gets to be deported with the illegal, eh?
If they (ScotUS) ruled against a ban, I would not consider the debate settled. Charge 'em with treason and hang 'em.
“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?”
The Constitution does not grant Constitutional rights to the world. No foreigner has a Constitutional right to immigrate into the United States.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump...
He’s on the march.
The enemy sent one more such team which got captured and suffered a comparable fate. After that, there were no further attempts. Do you think they learned something here?
"Treasonists" has a nice ring to it...
Please do not call names.
The protocol of Free Republic is to post the article title without modification unless too long.
What I get really tired of hearing is that Trump's proposed ban of new Muslims "is just not who we are". Bull pucky. If we are to survive as a nation, we not only have to defeat the liberals but must also keep Islamic jihadists out of the country.
Please define "you" in your comment, 'If this is a "bombshell" to you, you are a complete moron.'
Thank you for the reply.
Leni
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.