Lion of the Blogosphere

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.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 9, 2015 at 10:09 am

Posted in Immigration, Law

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree on the legal argument.

    The fact is that residents and citizens of countries outside the US simply do not have the same rights under US law as American citizens or even American legal residents. There would be a problem with barring an American citizen living abroad from returning. There is no problem with barring any or a class of non-Americans from traveling or immigrating here.

    You forgot that during the Cold War the US government in fact barred specific individuals from traveling to the US because they had left-wing political views. This may still go on today, under the radar. At the time, it was controversial. I think the government went overboard on doing this, as they always do, but the policy itself was perfectly legal.

    However, its more practical to just bar people from entire countries, except accredited diplomats and their families, instead of getting into figuring out what people’s religious beliefs are. The US government currently does discriminate in how easy it is to get here from different countries,for example many countries are on the end of fairly difficult visa requirements. Unfortunately, that leaves the problem of radicalized Muslims resident in Europe traveling to the US. The government should be (gently) encouraging European countries to also tighten up on taking in Muslims, unfortunately I suspect it is doing the exact opposite.


    December 9, 2015 at 10:32 am

    • “You forgot that during the Cold War the US government in fact barred specific individuals from traveling to the US because they had left-wing political views.”

      I mentioned in the post yesterday the Supreme Court case which held that it’s OK to expel non-citizens for having communist views, even though such views are protected by the First Amendment when held by citizens.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 9, 2015 at 10:36 am

      • The US government is also known for effectively expelling citizens for having orthogonal views. All this talk about citizens vs. non-citizens rights is purely to confuse low IQ people. The bottom line is the US government discriminates against you based on the degree of your allegiance.


        December 9, 2015 at 1:55 pm

  2. The screening for Muslims at ports of entry could be Shariah-based.

    “Do you renounce sharia law?”

    Of course they could lie about that too. We may have to outlaw Sharia law in the US, then anyone found supporting it could be kicked out. Citizenship stripped or legal status removed.

    Andrew E.

    December 9, 2015 at 10:39 am

    • It is already outlawed in the US, except for the dietary part of it. Do you want to outlaw dietary part of it too? Make not eating pork illegal? Are you sure about it? I would recommend reading about stuff before writing about it.


      December 9, 2015 at 2:16 pm

  3. Who cares about the Constitution? It’s a piece of paper. Lets just worry about getting rid of the immigrants and not worry about things like the law.

    Otis the Sweaty

    December 9, 2015 at 10:51 am

  4. A running among Iranians is that they are too good for terrorism so they pay the Arabs to do it for them (Hezbollah, Assad, Houthis of Yemen). But on a more serious note, Iran does a lot of espionage in the USA. The large American Persian community makes it easy for Iranian spies to slip in and out. Espionage requires discretion while goal of terrorism is to draw attention.


    December 9, 2015 at 11:09 am

  5. What about the fact that NYC and LA and a few other places LOVE the Billions of Dollars the wealthy foreign Muslims (from the Middle East) spend on shopping and real estate.
    How do we get them to continue to return our petrodollars by blowing it up on haute couture, Ferraris and Bel-air mansions while keeping their poor cousins out?

    Yul Brynner

    December 9, 2015 at 11:10 am

  6. The Overton Window still is not fully shifted–liberals decline to acknowledge that diversity + proximity = tension, reduced trust, eroded civic culture, conflict, and eventually outright war.


    December 9, 2015 at 11:23 am

  7. Another excellent comment from another site, this one about Trump and the Overton window:

    “There’s a feedback loop between what’s said on TV and the public conversation.

    The Nice White People in my family weren’t silently angry about immigration — still aren’t, really. “Mildly concerned” would be the strongest term I could apply to them. Since they stick mainly to safe mainstream media sources, they don’t know the reality of immigration. And you couldn’t tell them about it because the mainstream had declared it off-limits, and because Ellis Island and great-great-grandpa and -grandma O’Doole starving in the hold of a America-bound potato boat. So a year ago, if I’d gone to Christmas dinner and suggested we kick out all Muslims, they would have reacted as if I’d announced a penchant for chubby 15-year-olds.

    This year it will be different — not because their anger has been unleashed, or because they’re significantly more anti-immigrant than they were. They probably won’t be. But it will be an acceptable topic now, because important people on TV are talking about it; and even if they disagree with me, they won’t refuse to discuss it and listen.

    Trump did that. It could have been someone else, but it had to be someone like him in some ways, and he did it.”

    Andrew E.

    December 9, 2015 at 12:12 pm

  8. great post Lion

    i hope you are right about not needing new legislation. the INA has been amended several times since the late 70’s when Carter was president.

    the spree killers’ family members that the press and CAIR rushed to defend turned out to be part of a Muslim Brotherhood associated group that is only one step less bad than Al Queda/ISIS.


    December 9, 2015 at 4:03 pm

  9. But people would still be coming in due to family reunification policies, right? We can’t stop people who are already citizens from marrying who they want and then bringing that person here without discriminating against citizens. Family reunification is a big chunk of current immigration. We can and should limit family reunification other than for spouses and minor children, but I’m not sure how close to 0 we can get with those categories allowed.

    Greg Pandatshang

    December 9, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    • Yes we can. There is no constitutional right to marry someone from a foreign country and allow them to move here.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 9, 2015 at 4:47 pm

      • There are a lot of rights that are not specified in the constitution but which I would feel pretty ticked off I were denied them in my own country.

        Greg Pandatshang

        December 9, 2015 at 6:09 pm

  10. You are correct. Since 1989, the Lautenberg Amendment allowed certain religious minorites from certain countries to attain special status and immigrate to the US. Applicants from those countries who did not belong to a protected ethnic or religious group faced severe discrimination in the immigration process. This preference mainly benefited Soviet Jews, although other religious minorities (Soviet evangelical Christians, Ukrainian Catholics, Iranian Bahai’s, etc.) also gained.

    Congress clearly is empowered to do this, and almost nobody objected when Jews and Christians were the beneficiaries. One may, of course, debate the wisdom of excluding Muslims (I’m for it), but it certainly is legal.

    Black Death

    December 9, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: