Some Voters Bristle at Donald Trump’s Plan to Ban Muslims From Entering United …

9 Dec 2015 | Author: | No comments yet »

Donald Trump’s Anti-Muslim Demand Sparks Sharp Backlash.

But make no mistake: He is a leader, no matter his uncle-in-the-attic incoherence — and no matter that this time he’s pointing America down a truly dark and dangerous road.GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump Tuesday denied an Associated Press report he planned to visit Jordan only hours after the wire service said he planned to go there.

Republican U.S. presidential front-runner Donald Trump is drawing rebukes from across the world for proposing a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States until the country’s leaders can “figure out what is going on” about possible new terrorist attacks. The AP reported that Trump’s visit to Jordan, an overwhelmingly Muslim country, would take place during his trip to Israel, which he previously disclosed during an interview last week. White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Tuesday called Trump’s rhetoric “offensive and toxic,” saying his plan “disqualifies him from serving as president” because he would be violating the U.S. President Obama’s insistent failure to confront the realities of global jihad has produced its opposite in Donald Trump’s unfiltered nationalist id.

The answer is not what you might think — but it also raises the issue of what, exactly, we mean when we say something is “constitutional” in the first place. This is in response to the false @AP report.” An overflow crowed fills the hangar deck of the USS Yorktown as Republican presidential candidate, businessman Donald Trump, speaks during a rally coinciding with Pearl Harbor Day at Patriots Point aboard the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in Mt. General-Secretary Ban Ki-moon, in responding to Trump’s latest comments, said, “We do not believe that any kind of rhetoric that relies on Islamophobia, xenophobia, any other appeal to hate any groups, really should be followed by anyone.” Keysar Trad, chairman of the Sydney-based Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, called Trump’s comment “a desperate statement by a desperate man who knows that he’s clutching at straws and has no chance of winning the election.

In the ordinary, non-immigration world of constitutional law, the Trump scheme would be blatantly unconstitutional, a clear violation of both equal protection and religious freedom (he had originally called for barring American Muslims living abroad from re-entering the country as well; he has since dropped that clearly unconstitutional notion). A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, had told the AP that the U.S. government was making preparations for Trump to also visit Jordan at the campaign’s request. He shot to the top of the Republican presidential field early on, and he remains there today, by kicking over every milk can in sight and then rolling around in the mess. 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. America’s political and media elite are, as always, appalled by Trump’s shtick — and don’t hesitate to say so in the most condescending terms possible.

Another law professor, Richard Friedman of the University of Michigan, told The Washington Post that Trump’s idea is “blatantly unconstitutional if it excludes U.S. citizens (from re-entering the U.S. after trips to other countries) because they are Muslims. This just supercharges Trump’s appeal, for at least two reasons: Americans don’t like to be condescended to; and his rants aren’t wholly irrational. They’re trying to get publicity for themselves,” Trump told ABC’s Barbara Walters. “You know when I came out against illegal immigration, everybody said the same thing. It’s ridiculous.” Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul who leads presidential preference surveys of Republicans, announced the plan Monday in a statement, then expanded on it at a political rally in South Carolina. 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.

He called it “common sense” and said that “we have no choice” in the wake of last week’s attack at a California government center that killed 14 people and was carried out by two Muslims, a husband-and-wife team investigators say had been “radicalized.” On Tuesday morning news shows in the U.S., the flamboyant Trump continued to defend the proposal and condemned President Barack Obama’s efforts in leading the fight against Islamic State militants in the Middle East. In a contentious interview on CNN, Trump referenced the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., saying, “You’re going to have many more World Trade Centers if you don’t solve it. More recent decisions have upheld discrimination against immigrants based on gender and illegitimacy that would never have survived equal protection scrutiny in the domestic context.

Because Trump is a private citizen, the State Department does not extend to him the same level of assistance as an administration official or member of Congress, but it was working cooperatively with his campaign, the official said. They had their noses shoved into a radical variant of the faith on a brilliantly sunlit September morning 14 years ago, and the news hasn’t been hopeful since. Trump was widely criticized over his proposal this week to prevent all Muslims from visiting the U.S., although he clarified his idea Tuesday to say that he would allow foreign Muslim leaders to visit.

They are living in our country and many are outside of our country.” “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Trump said. As late as 1965, a federal appeals court upheld a measure that counted a Brazilian citizen of Japanese descent as Asian for the purposes of immigration quotas. Paris has suffered two horrifyingly lethal Islamist attacks just this year, the Mideast is in flames — and nobody has a clue as to where, when and in what form the next attack will come. Virulent statements against Muslims are nothing new for Trump, who has called on the government to monitor mosques, and has refused to rule out his earlier proposal to enter the names of Muslims in America into a database.

The courts have justified this constitutional exceptionalism on the grounds that immigration law implicates foreign relations and national security — even in the absence of a specific, plausible foreign policy rationale. Sunday night, he still couldn’t put the two words together in a single sentence — blaming San Bernardino (14 dead, 21 wounded) on two individuals who “had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam.” That’s progress from blaming Fort Hood (13 dead; 30 wounded) on “workplace violence.” But it’s somewhat less persuasive than it might otherwise have been had Attorney General Loretta Lynch not simultaneously all but threatened to prosecute people simply for criticizing Islam.

We want those Muslims coming forward with tips or warnings, but they won’t do so if they feel that their government treats all Muslims as terror suspects. The 1977 Fiallo case, for instance, involved a father seeking the admission of his out-of-wedlock son from the French West Indies — hardly the stuff of national interest.

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.” President Obama has used this to the better end of excluding serious human rights violators. Telling Muslims that they aren’t welcome to immigrate to the U.S. under any circumstances will make it harder for Arabs anywhere to be associated with America. Americans also worry that the current Commander in Chief doesn’t understand the jihadist threat, in part because he keeps saying it isn’t much of a threat.

A corollary we have pressed repeatedly since 9/11 is that the failure to fight jihad abroad, and to accept limited restraints on privacy at home, would lead to far greater assaults on liberty if there are more mass-casualty attacks. If you were born in the Philippines and are seeking to join a sibling who has American citizenship, for example, your wait in line is 10 years longer than almost everyone else’s. Obama may be too ideologically obstinate to change, which means it will be up to other GOP presidential candidates to transcend the Obama-Trump dialectic. It now needs to take the cue from the rest of us and bring its reading of the Constitution in line with the public’s own, more progressive constitutional norms.

Twitter-news
Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

About this site