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?
Thanks for posting this article! I’m glad to see the scholars backing Trump.
That gives him the authority to declare the ban. Once he does do you expect that every single Muslim in the world will say, “Gee there goes our trip to Disneyworld. The U.S. says we can’t come in so now we have to stay home?” Will ISIS say, “Damn! There goes our terror plans. President Trump says we can’t enter the U.S.” Will you depend on their honesty and say, “We now have complete and total halt to Muslims entering the U.S.!” Because if not then how are you going to identify any Muslim trying to enter and keep them from coming in?
Waiting to hear Trump's plan on how he can keep any Muslims from entering.
Then by all means enlighten me and tell me how it can be done.
I keep asking the question hoping for a rational solution. And I'm constantly disappointed. The fact is that neither Trump or his supporters have a clue on how to do it. Trump hasn't a clue as to accomplish half the stuff he promises.
“Watters got back at arrogant billy a few times last nite. It was great.”
I love Watters. He has a delightful, droll sense of humor, is sharp as a tack, and I’m so glad he has gotten his own weekend evening show on Fox now. Actually, now that Huckabee is fizzling big-time in his attempted Presidential run, will Fox Cable TV hire him back for his Sat/Sun night variety show that was actually wildly popular?
I hope he comes back to Fox. Huckabee actually is a very talented man, and was perfectly suited to working within the entertainment medium, which let’s face it, isn’t that far off from politics anyhow.
What kind of country could we have if we could NOT exclude foreigners for any reason whatsoever? No other country that I know of throws their doors open to anyone who can find their way across the border. If you open the doors of your house to anyone who wants to stroll in you don’t have a home and if your country does the same you don’t have a country.
Can’t wait for the USS Trump LOL
BUMP
So as long as they haven’t become citizens. Maybe Trump can deport the Muslims that Obama has flooded us with.
Would the kiss a pig at customs program be to politically incorrect? That is not profiling is it?
Assuming this is all true, the only problem is that the 3 women currently on the court are anti Christian, and I would argue (sluts (sorry) that have no problem ruling from a dishonest point of view.
Throw in Breyer who shares their philosophy. There`s 4 votes that would have no problem voting for anything.
As I have written before, over the past 70-plus years, the Communist Party and its various legal fronts, aided knowingly by the ACLU, have tried to destroy our internal security laws and agencies, among them those that deal with immigration.
They have succeeded far beyond what most American know. If you don’t believe me, go see the immigration reform bills pasted in the 1988-89 period which lifted restrictions on people who verbally or even financially supported foreign terrorism organizations/movements, etc. [Look up the “Los Angeles 8” case, re supporters in America, some non-citizens, who sold newspapers supporting the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), George Habash].
They won, in court, the right to do that as long as they did not pose and imminent threat (of performing a criminal or terroristic act).
There might be something on this at www.keywiki.org, www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org, and www.wikipedia.org (watch out for the credibility of their section, if they have one, because anyone can contribute to the section without having to provide checkable citations).
Members of Congress who supported the near destruction of the Walters-McCarren Act section of the “Immigration and Naturalization Act”, each or one of them from about 1952), included
*Steny Hoyer - D-Md
*Barney Frank - D-Mass , a key leader of this fight
*Ted Kennedy - D-Mass
*Pat Moynihan - D-NY? or Mass.
Others
There is a long history behind the legislation to keep “undesirables, communists, anarchists, etc.” out of America, going back as far as the WW1 ear, and the reds have fought it tooth and nail since them.
You’d be surprised as the other members of Congress who supported the communist effort or, if you know them, maybe not (i.e Comrade John Conyers (D-Mich), Bella Abzug (D-NY) and possible Soviet asset, Don Edwards (D-Cal), totally against any security programs, etc).
Rush quoted the actual federal statute...i.e., the President has sole executive authority to limit and/or restrict anyone or any group of potential entrants on his executive authority......
Trust me...Trump could have made a 30 second phone call to his legal team and had the correct answer immediately while the lazy lame-stream press assumed they were right because liberals are always right...except when they are wrong which is all the time!
These so-called holy Immans are preaching Sharia Law sedition which is illegal under US Code. My point was for politicians, pundits, journalists and others to stop the religious angle and start looking at the promotion of Sharia Law, which is blatant sedition. Every last one of them should be arrested.
No big deal.
Well, he might be a "jackanape".
Bkmrk
I guess none of these experts have read the immigration laws which say the President can include or exclude anybody for any reason for any period of time.
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.