A smart person knows the difference between what you “can” do or say, versus what’s the “wise” thing to do or say.
That trait is called discernment.
Yes, our president on our nation’s behalf, “can” ban anyone he deems detrimental to the nation from immigrating here.
However, you know, as well as I, the optics of banning people based on their religion is politically RADIOACTIVE.
Can you imagine how loudly and compelling the argument would be made that it’s the height of hypocrisy for a nation founded on “freedom of religion” to deny “refugees” that same opportunity?
There’s a alot of emotional passion that Mr. Trump inspires.
Rest assured the left is even more expert in emotional rhetoric, and the only way the Trump campaign and real conservatives are going to win the election and critical objectives, is to not fall into a trap of their own making.
Banning immigration from high risk nations is a smarter and more legitimate way of achieving the goal of reducing further islamic threats landing on our shore, rather than targeting a specific religion.
Discrimination based on religion would Never have legal standing these days (except Christians /s)
A Syrian Muslim can deny their religion and successfully immigrate in the case of a ban on Muslim immigration.
However, Syrians (and its jihadist muslims) would be denied entry to our country if there were a ban on immigration from that nation.
We’ve got to be smarter, more determined and communicate better than insane destructive liberals if we want to win and save this country.
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182:
“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.”
Yes, the president has the authority to do exactly what Trump is describing. And by the way, this kind of thing has happened before.
In the late 1800s, Congress passed legislation broadly aimed at halting the immigration of Chinese laborers. Those were not fully repealed until 1943. Quotas limiting immigration based on race and national origin were also enacted in the early 1900s. Racial quotas were repealed in 1952, and those limiting people based on national origin were eliminated in 1965.
Carter and W both banned Muslims for awhile.
I don't think it's that radioactive for most rank-and-file Americans.
If I'm not mistaken, weren't their some shenanigans with the San Bernardino shooters when they entered the country originally, or most recently.
There ample reason to believe that ISIS, AL Qaeda, or some other Islamic extremist groups will try to use our immigration policy against us.
If there's any lawful way to combat that, then immigration bans of that nature are going to be perfectly acceptable to the American People.
The only other alternative would be to halt immigration for everyone. If National Defense is at stake, there's a lot of leeway to be expected.
So again, less radioactive than one may think.
Rush Limbaugh pointed out how Carter did this, and how Trump's "notion" as nothing new at all:
Trump's "Nutty" Proposal Is Already the Law of the Land -- and Was Used by Jimmy Carter During the Hostage Crisis
Vote Trump