NY Times and law professor agree with Lion
I didn’t realize that there was an op-ed in the NY Times yesterday, written by an immigration law professor from Temple University, agreeing with me that it’s constitutional to ban non-citizen Muslims from entering the country.
Under a line of rulings from the Supreme Court dating back more than a century, that’s irrelevant. As the court observed in its 1977 decision in Fiallo v. Bell, “In the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
The court has given the political branches the judicial equivalent of a blank check to regulate immigration as they see fit. This posture of extreme deference is known as the “plenary power” doctrine. It dates back to the 1889 decision in the Chinese Exclusion case, in which the court upheld the exclusion of Chinese laborers based on their nationality.
Also, Trump doesn’t even need an act of Congress to implement the plan.
President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” on his finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
* * *
From Front Page Magazine, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming to the United States, and he also required Iranians here on student visas to report to the Immigration office to check their visas.
* * *
I also want to point out again that I agree 100% that no Muslims should be allowed to move here permanently. We don’t really need any more people moving here, and we certainly don’t need Muslims who, even if they aren’t with ISIS now, are far more likely to be attracted to ISIS because their interpretation of Islam is really only a few baby steps away from mainstream interpretation of Islam. And if it’s not ISIS or al-Qaeda it will be some future Islamic jihadist movement. That pandora’s box has been opened and isn’t going away.
I originally stated that there are some practical problems with banning all travel by all Muslims from all countries. However, it should be noted that ALL of the 9/11 hijackers were here on temporary visas (tourist, business, and student). That’s right, all of them. Many of them overstayed their visas and were illegal aliens.
I think there is reason to be extremely suspicious of visitors from certain problem countries. They would be all countries in the Middle East (the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) which includes Syria and Iraq where ISIS is based, and also Pakistan and Afghanistan where there is a very high Taliban/al-Qaeda presence and where many have beliefs similar to what ISIS believes.
Incidentally, Iran isn’t on that list of problem countries. All of these terrorist movements are Sunni, not Shi’ite.