How would you write an Executive Order for Donald Trump refusing Muslims entry to the US that would pass Constitutional muster?
It’s not likely that you could.
I’m not a lawyer but I feel like even if the President succeeded in making a case that his act of exclusion doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment because the people it targets are not citizens, since there are already Muslim citizens with family abroad, I feel like they would have standing to declare that they are impacted by the restriction and so, as citizens, their 1st Amendment right was being infringed.
IMHO the horse was put before the cart. This should had been priority #1 in the new congress by reviewing and putting new vetting rules/laws in place and then Trump can make and sign the EO that would target the bad people from those countries.
Not the abortion that we got that ended targeting already vetted green card holders and refugees. An EO that affected, as it was shown, people that are important not only for the American economy, but important for science and even people of those troubled nations that are risking their lives to help America fight ISIS.
Prove muslims from specific countries are the major source of terrorist actions. Hell just lie about the damn thing. Tell the public muslims from countries ABC are statistically prone to radicialization and previous intelligences say these people are planning attacks on American soil actively. and the only way to stop this from happening is banning people with certain ideologies from coming into the US.
Seems pretty simple to me. If your means can’t justify the ends then you’re probably doing something wrong.
Edit: For the sake of putting it out there. I think if you’re really going to propose further vetting or temporary bans then you should also consider cutting ties with Syrian oil and discontinue fuelign the war machine in the middle east. Just propose systematic relief programs to change their governments over time. Engaging in the arguments only causes further conflict, the least the US can do is stop fueling it even if it costs lives. Lives will be spent either way.
So basically you are saying that the visa/refugee process already in place is fine and Trump is just making noise so as to be seen as doing something. Of course, he failed miserably.
It may or may not be fine. If it’s not fine it may need analysis and revision. That would be Trump’s job.
Of course. Remember, Trump is going to run the presidency like a business, and his business is reality television. So it’s all about the dramatic moment, the big reveal, the engineered conflict. Actually effecting change is not part of the business model.
That depends on what you think he was trying to do.
We have historical examples where you can ban ethnic groups:
Or more recently:
There have not been any amendments to the Constitution affecting immigration since these laws were passed (and these met Constitutional requirements).
The President cannot issue any executive order that he wants; it must be consistent with the laws Congress passes. So all I think Trump has to do is to get Congress to pass the appropriate legislation to prevent the issuance of visas to what he considers undesirables. Much of the problem arises because he tried to prevent people coming in who already had visas.
Yes, yes we do. Hell, we even banned Mormon immigrants at one point. What part/s of the constitution are people thinking about when they say a ban is “unconstitutional!!”? The only unconstitutional part of Trump’s ban is not letting citizens back into the country after traveling abroad.
Well, except the OP doesn’t talk about a ban on an ethnic group, but a religiously-defined ban.
I don’t think Congress has ever attempted to ban a religiously-defined group from entering, and obviously there’s that whole tiresome “Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion” business to negotiate.
Yes, I get that you could try to get around this by writing the law so that it only banned Muslim non-citizens, and then arguing that the First Amendment does not protect non-citizens. But, still, I think it introduces a dimension that isn’t present with a purely ethnic ban, where the principal objection is the Fourteenth Amendment, which on the face of it only protects citizens and persons already within the jurisdiction of the US. There’s no such express limitation in the First Amendment.