Why do liberals think constitutional things apply to anyone outside of our country? It is amazing the things they try to give to citizens of the world.
Here is a temporary proposal that will help secure the country until things can be settled with Islamic State. Even other Muslim countries aren’t letting these migrants in. Which makes this controversy seem to be only a political correct exercise in nonsense.
Obama’s checks on Muslims coming to America have proven to be useless. Why are we insisting on letting more in? We are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Time to act like we are.
Check it out:
Some of the more restrained reactions to GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s suggestion that Muslims need to be excluded from American immigration programs until Congress gets a handle on the issue of terror have come from his competitors in the race.
“Unhinged” came from Jeb Bush. “Offensive” was from Marco Rubio. And more.
But the most pointed attacks came from those who simply said it was unconstitutional.
William Banks of Syracuse law school told the Wall Street Journal, “Aside from being outrageous, it would be unconstitutional.” Laurence Tribe at Harvard’s law school agreed.
Talking to U.S. News & World Report, Harvard Law professor Gerald Neuman said the idea is “discriminatory in a fashion that’s totally inconsistent with constitutional principles.”
However, that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional, apparently.
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, pointed out that the Supreme Court “has held consistently, for more than a century, 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.”
“This is called the plenary power doctrine,” he continued. “The court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections.”
He said while the court hasn’t ruled specifically on religious discrimination, “it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from this general rule.”
Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist at the UCLA School of Law, mostly agreed.
“As a policy matter, I think that banning entry by Muslims would be a very bad idea, for many reasons. But, like many very bad ideas, it might not be unconstitutional,” he wrote.
In fact, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell cites this provision of federal law:
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.”
NPR described the reaction to Trump’s comments – which came in the aftermath of an attack by two Muslims in California, including a woman who arrived from Pakistan, when they shot and killed 14 at a county Christmas event and injured another 21 – as a “torrent of criticism.”
Continue reading: WND
It is embarrassing to see everyone come out against Trump on this one. A policy that actually makes sense during a time of war and people are trying to make him out to be a racist.
Maybe if Muslims would police their own we wouldn’t have such issues. That of course is dependent on whether you think there are radical Muslims or if Muslims are radical.
I think the evidence is clear from their own book that Muslims are radical.
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!