Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Court rulings support Trump's Muslim immigration plan

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Court rulings support Trump's Muslim immigration plan

    By Jan C. Ting
    Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2015, 3:55 PM

    The hysterical response to Donald Trump’s proposal to restrict Muslim immigration is unwarranted.

    Contrary to the claims of Trump’s critics, the power to suspend the admission of “any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States” is expressly reserved by statute to the president whenever the president finds that such admission “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    Candidate Trump is telling us that President Obama should use this power, and that a President Trump would.

    Despite vigorous assertions by talking heads that suspending the admission of Muslim immigrants would be unconstitutional, prior Supreme Court opinions clearly suggest that courts would reject constitutional challenges to any president’s proposed suspension of Muslim admission into the United States in accordance with U.S. law.

    In the leading case of Fiallo v. Bell, the Supreme Court in 1977 noted, “Our cases ‘have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’”

    In upholding the authority of the government to deny admission to aliens, the high court observed that “in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, ‘Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.’”

    The long line of cases referred to in Fiallo traces back to the Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could exclude by statute immigrant laborers of a particular race and ethnicity. If the government can exclude aliens on the basis of race and ethnicity, is there any basis on which it cannot exclude aliens? The answer so far seems to be no.

    In 1972, the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of a Belgian Marxist writer, rejecting First Amendment claims made on his behalf and on behalf of the U.S. citizens who had invited him and wished to meet with him.

    The Supreme Court has also sustained the exclusion of an alien on the basis of secret evidence, essentially for no stated reason at all. And earlier this year the high court upheld the exclusion of the spouse of a U.S. citizen, rejecting due process claims made on behalf of the alien and the spouse.

    President Jimmy Carter exercised presidential power to suspend admission of Iranians on the basis of their nationality during the Iranian hostage crisis. A constitutional challenge to his registration requirement for Iranians already in the United States was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That court cited a Supreme Court opinion in the 1952 case Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, that “any policy toward aliens is … interwoven with … foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”

    So if the proposed suspension of the admission of Muslim aliens is authorized by statute and likely to be judged constitutional by the courts, the dispute is reduced to a policy judgment.

    Throughout the campaign, Trump has driven the discussion and forced his rivals for president to respond to him. What alternatives do his critics propose? Dismissing ISIS as the junior varsity, as President Obama did in a New Yorker interview, or describing ISIS as “contained” on the eve of the ISIS attack on Paris, do not seem like the right policy.

    The political process is all about letting the American people decide who has better ideas and who they trust to be president. We should resist attempts to push the frontrunner or any candidate out of the race.

    Jan C. Ting is a professor of law at Temple University Beasley School of Law
    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/t...ion-plan-.html
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Jan C. Ting is a professor of law at Temple University Beasley School of Law
    I listened to this professor testify at one of Jeff Sessions Immigration Committee Hearings, and wow, was he grrrreat! Wonderful testimony, made all the others arguing for more immigration look dumb as snot, which I'm sure they are.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    The mayor of Philadelphia spoke for himself in denouncing Mr Trump's words that called for a legitimate ceastation of muslims from countries involved with jihad; certainly he the current or future mayor do not speak for the populace.

    We were/are not able to vote for or against the "sanctuary city" status declared by the mayor and city council SANS approval by the taxpaying citizens...yet our property taxes were raised 4x to send the multitude of illegals' kids to schools - the FATHERS PAYING ZERO - AMERICAN CITIZENS, TRY THAT -THEY WILL TAKE YOUR PAYCHECK, YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE.

    Good little demes following the lead of a wayward admin that subjected us to numerous criminal illegals. OUTRAGEOUS!
    Last edited by artist; 12-11-2015 at 12:17 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Fortunately, this "resolution" isn't worth the time or paper it's written on since Congress has no authority whatsoever over who can be admitted, only who can not be.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #6
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Constitutional Prof: ‘Clear Statutory Authority’ for Donald Trump’s Muslim Immigratio

    Constitutional Prof: ‘Clear Statutory Authority’ for Donald Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban

    by ALEX SWOYER
    12 Dec 2015
    Washington, DC

    Jan Ting, professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, joined Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM with guest host Matthew Boyle and discussed how the Constitution and Supreme Court cases support Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States to protect Americans from possible terrorists coming into the country.

    “I think the reaction to candidate Trump’s proposal has really been what I call hysterical. I think the failed establishment is panicked that Trump is making a case for himself,” Ting told Boyle. “There’s clear statutory authority in the laws [outlined by] Congress … delegating to the president” the power to impose an immigration ban “whenever the president finds that such admission would be detrimental to the United States.”

    “Prior Supreme Court opinions clearly suggest that courts would reject” challenges to this type of move on immigration by a president, Ting stated, adding that immigration bans are up to Congress and the president. “The role of the courts is … minimal.”

    Ting referenced that President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the United States “just on the basis of their nationality,” and “there wasn’t even a challenge to that.”

    “Any policy toward aliens is tied up with foreign relations, the war power” Ting told Boyle. “This is going to be constitutional.”

    “What we’re talking about is a policy dispute between political candidates. Nothing to get worked up into a hysteria over,” Ting explained.

    “I’m a registered Republican, but I think of myself as an independent,” Ting said, adding,“I pick and choose who I’m going to support in each election.” He said sometimes he supports Republicans, and sometimes, Democrats.

    “The elites have exaggerated what happened to Japanese Americans,” Ting explained, referencing the attacks in the mainstream media comparing Trump’s proposal to what happened following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Ting said that move was a “different can of worms.”

    “There’s a clear line of cases that says the United States government can exclude those people for any reason or for no reason at all,” he stated.

    Boyle asked Ting about fellow GOP candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s (R-FL) referencing the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, saying, “This is the first time in the modern history of this county that an enemy has tried to manipulate our legal immigration sytem … to insert radicals … into the country.”

    Boyle pointed out that the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 came to the United States legally with foreign visas.

    “Senator Rubio is someone who I personally, under no circumstances, will support for President of the United States,” Ting exclaimed. “It’s better for the bad policy to be made by Democrats.” He added, “If bad policy is made by Republicans … we’re doomed.”

    “Rubio is one of those people. He was a sponsor of the big amnesty. … He was the only one of the few Republican sponsors of it,” Ting said, referencing Rubio’s failed Gang of Eight immigration bill in 2013.

    “I can’t support Republicans like that. Those are Republicans that I don’t support, and I’d rather see a Democrat elected than a bad Republican,” stressed Ting.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...migration-ban/
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Majority of California voters Support Trump’s Muslim ban plan
    By JohnDoe2 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-14-2015, 10:18 PM
  2. Lou Dobbs and Stuart Varney Support Trump on Muslim Ban!
    By Judy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2015, 12:33 AM
  3. Donald Trump Deflects Withering Fire on Muslim Plan
    By Judy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-09-2015, 11:51 PM
  4. Shocking List: 11 Public Figures Who Agree With Trump's Muslim Ban Plan
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-2015, 03:06 PM
  5. Donald Trump’s Crowd Cheers His Muslim Exclusion Plan
    By Judy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 10:53 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •