Here’s a few on both sides.
Top Scholars Say Trump Muslim Immigrant Ban May Be Constitutional
Constitution Check: Would a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. be valid?
Legal Scholar: Trump’s Muslim Ban May Be Constitutional
Is Trump’s Proposed Ban on Muslim Entry Unconstitutional?
Experts: Trump’s Muslim entry ban idea ‘ridiculous,’ ‘unconstitutional’
Well, first of all, non-citizens are afforded quite a few rights under the Constitution, as is plainly evident. The rights to due process, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom of speech are not limited to citizens.
In any event, Trump has not limited his proposed ban to non-citizens. He has stated all Muslims should be barred from entering the USA, including American citizens who had been abroad.
On what basis?
But not so much when they are outside US borders. Otherwise, the CIA would have to be disbanded in a minute. The US has no obligation to let any particular foreigner inside our borders. There would, to be sure, be problems with diplomats and such, but ordinary folk? I’m not so sure.
For US citizens, of course it would be unconstitutional.
Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses. Unless they be Muslim!
This is the part of it I am wondering if it’s unconstitutional. You can’t just ban citizens who have committed no crime. Can you?
The way Trump would probably implement his ban would be to make it depend on the country, not the religion. That wouldn’t keep all Muslims out, of course, and it would keep some non-Muslims out as we’ll, but it would be quite simple to implement.
Most likely it would be implemented as broadly as possible, expelling anyone “suspected of being Muslim”. There’d be an official or unofficial list of “Muslim traits” that would get you targeted for expulsion. Being non-white, women wearing hats (head covering), being insufficiently loudly Christian, not condemning Muslims loudly enough, having money or property they can grab when they expel you, or just irritating some neighbor who accuses you.
That’s how such persecutions usually work after all. Just look at the various attempts in various places in history to purge Jews. Or for an American (if non-religious) example, the internment of the Japanese during WWII.
You might wish to inform Mr. Trump, because this is his stated policy position on the matter.
I don’t recall “expulsion” as having been a part of his temporary solution. Let’s please stick to what he actually has said, that should be enough…Lord knows he doesn’t need people inventing things he has said. What he has actually said should be enough.
Funny that. The husband in the San Bernardino shootings was a natural born citizen.
His wife had permanent resident status.
His “stated policy” is worth as much as a tweet, per Omar’s note.
But I’m not here to tell Trump anything, just discuss things among the posters. Banning Muslims would be virtually impossible (few, if any, countries list religion on passports), but banning entry by citizens of X,Y, an Z countries seems like something a president could do. And it’s not like Trump is a master of consistency. He could come up with some [del]excuse[/del] reason why a county ban was just as good as a religion ban.
This thread wasn’t started to debate Trumpisms, the logic of his potential policies, etc. It was started to discuss if there was a viable way to implement this particular campaign declaration.
Malaysia is only about 60% Muslim. Bangladesh has a large non-Muslim minority as well. I believe in some countries passports do include religious status, but I won’t swear to that.
The obvious thing is to ask people to state their religion or sign an affidavit. You won’t keep out anyone who really wants to get in, but most people, Muslim or not, are unwilling to publicly disavow their religion.
The 17th century Japanese effectively kept out Christians by requiring visitors to desecrate a crucifix.
It is not obvious to me that such a law would violate the first amendment. It certainly doesn’t establish a religion and does not interfere with Muslims in the US from freely exercising their religion. Governments have pretty much a free hand on deciding whom to allow across their borders. It is arguable that rather than preventing Muslims from exercising their religion, it prevents them from traveling to the US. But there is no inherent right to travel to the US unless you are already a citizen. I am certain that four members of the court are already in agreement and one more Trump appointment would finish it.
Freedom of religion. It’s part of the 1st amendment.
Here, burn this Koran or you ain’t gettin’ past customs!!
I would think that terrorists are more likely to do so then most.