# Would restricting immigration from Muslims be Unconstitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 23, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390 "2015-11-23T23:14:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/81 "2015-11-26T17:29:35Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > No, it wouldn’t. It would have no relevance at all to people who never applied to the US government for admission to the US (or anything else). My statement was an exaggeration for effect that didn’t come through it seems. Application would be a trivially easy barrier to overcome. I see you are restrictions the limitations to the specific dealings but even then the US owes no duty to foreign nationals outside its borders. I think more on that is outside the scope of GQ. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/82 "2015-11-27T00:41:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > My statement was an exaggeration for effect that didn’t come through it seems. Application would be a trivially easy barrier to overcome. I see you are restrictions the limitations to the specific dealings but even then the US owes no duty to foreign nationals outside its borders. I think more on that is outside the scope of GQ. I accept that the position is as you say. My point is that it doesn’t _have_ to be that way; it’s not _inevitable_; common sense doesn’t demand it. If you stop thinking of the constitution as an instrument which confers rights on people, and start thinking of the constitution as an instrument which establishes the United States and defines its powers and capacities, then there’s nothing fundamentally odd about the notion that it defines what the United States can and cannot do in its dealings with both citizens and non-citizens, both within and without the national territory. That doesn’t mean that uniform standards would necessarily apply in all these cases. My point is not that the Constutin must require all these cases to be treated identically; just that there’s nothing improbable about the notion that could does apply to all these cases, and that governmental action in all of them should be susceptible of judicial review for conformity with the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/83 "2015-11-27T02:25:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The courts have ruled on this matter, and they disagree with you. I thought that when congress acted to repeal the law decades later that then referencing what the courts ruled regarding those cases is mostly a moot point. Going back to the matter **Chronos** commented about how this could go to the courts, I think a lot will depend on how much the federal or state governments turn their inhumanity up to 11. I do think looking at other refugees that were denied by political reasons should be mentioned, particularly because I was part of that group. [http://www.uscis.gov/laws/legal-settlement-notices/american-baptist-churches-v-thornburgh-abc-settlement-agreement](http://www.uscis.gov/laws/legal-settlement-notices/american-baptist-churches-v-thornburgh-abc-settlement-agreement) > [@](#): > > American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh (ABC) Settlement Agreement > > Background > > What Is the ABC Settlement Agreement? > > In 1985, a group of religious organizations and refugee advocacy organizations filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now USCIS), the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the United States Department of State (DOS). The lawsuit is known as American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (initially known as American Baptist Churches of the U.S.A. v. Meese), and is commonly referred to as the ABC lawsuit. A federal judge subsequently certified a class of Guatemalan and Salvadoran nationals as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the INS (now USCIS), EOIR and DOS engaged in discriminatory treatment of asylum claims made by Guatemalans and Salvadorans. > > In 1990, the government and attorneys representing the certified class settled the class action lawsuit. The ABC settlement agreement was approved by a federal court in January 1991. The ABC settlement agreement provides that an eligible class member who registers for benefits and applies for asylum by the agreed-upon dates (these deadlines were initially defined in the settlement agreement, but the asylum filing deadlines were later extended by agreement of the parties) is entitled to an initial or de novo asylum interview and adjudication under the asylum regulations published July 27, 1990, which became effective October 1, 1990, and special provisions of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement also contains special provisions regarding employment authorization and detention of eligible class members. IMHO one has to notice that it was for religious and humanitarian reasons that groups like the American Baptist Churches resorted to the law because they were the affected groups, not the refugees. The end result however was that the refugees were accepted as such and that the Reagan administration essentially lost the case. Religion then was not an issue in that case, but to me something similar can take place, many groups that help Syrian refugees are being confronted by governors like the one in Texas that want to prevent any aid to the refugees; while the religion of the refugees will not be a reason for the complaint it has to be noted that since there is no reason to deal with the religion issue the courts would indeed find it odd if states or the federal government (if a Republican wins) would try to make the argument that the religion of the refugees that are affected should be an issue. What I think it will happen is that the courts will inform the defendants that attempting to plug in religion as a condition to prevent refugees from coming to their states will get them eventually in contempt of the courts if they do not drop it, this will be a refugee issue plain and simple. The end result however is that mostly Muslins will benefit as most Syrians are of that faith anyhow. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/84 "2015-11-27T02:53:51Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Note that the thread had a weird typo in it where it didn’t end with a question mark, but an accented E. I fixed that for you, Sam. Thanks very much. My keyboard is regularly switching itself to ‘Canadian French’, and that’s where the weird characters come from. Usually I catch it and switch it back to English, but this time I didn’t catch it. I have no idea why it keeps doing that. It’s probably a conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/85 "2015-11-27T03:02:41Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But why? The First Amendment forbids establishment of religion or hindering the free exercise of religion. How does keeping people of a certain religion out of the country do that? They aren’t in this country yet, so the law of the land doesn’t yet apply to them. It’s hard to say they are being hindered from practicing their religion by the U.S. government when they aren’t in the U.S. yet and subject to U.S. laws or protections. I think that If I were an American citizen in a minority religion, and the government announced that from now on no other members of my religion would be allowed into the country, I would have standing in court, because my faith is being discriminated against. This is a clear situation of the government putting its thumb on the scales to discriminate against one religion over others. How is that NOT a violation of the establishment clause? It’s not about the rights of the immigrant to be allowed into the country - it’s about the rights of American ciizens to live in a country devoid of state bias against specific religions. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/86 "2015-11-27T03:51:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I think that If I were an American citizen in a minority religion, and the government announced that from now on no other members of my religion would be allowed into the country, I would have standing in court, because my faith is being discriminated against. No way. You can’t sue on behalf of someone else just because you share their religion. > [@](#): > > This is a clear situation of the government putting its thumb on the scales to discriminate against one religion over others. How is that NOT a violation of the establishment clause? How does it establish religion? It doesn’t change religion in this country at all. Nobody in this country will be affected. Nobody in this country will have any less right to practice their religion. > [@](#): > > It’s not about the rights of the immigrant to be allowed into the country - it’s about the rights of American ciizens to live in a country devoid of state bias against specific religions. So there’s a right to have people of your religion imported into the country somehow? That’s the crux of your argument that fails - the idea that you can make a claim that you are affected by someone else’s immigration based on nothing more than sharing their religion. I’m not ruling this out. But I’m really skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/87 "2015-11-27T05:22:07Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > My son, who’s English, lived in the US for 5 years. He had a green card, a good job, an American wife and everything seemed fine. Then one day he was called in to the immigration bureau. Because he came in originally on a tourist visa and even though he’d been given his green card they decided he should have exited the country and then applied for a work visa. So because of this he was stripped of all his possessions, locked up, denied access to a lawyer and summarily deported. > > If the Constitution applies to non-Americans why was he denied any rights at all? That’s why I found the idea of the Constitution protecting non-citizens bizarre. He was told that as an illegal immigrant he had no rights at all. Details and timing become the question here. For example, you are specifically forbidden from entering the US on a tourist visa with the intent of working or marrying. There are exceptions but those exceptions would need to be legally implemented before the tourist visa expires. From the sounds of it, someone screwed up issuing him a green card, if they were wrong to do so, his green card is invalidated. Thus he has no legal permission to be here. I have an acquaintance who missed a deadline on a filing for her new husband after they married here. He had to go back to new zealand 3 weeks after the wedding . Took just shy of two years to get it sorted out for him to come back. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/88 "2015-11-27T10:45:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But the matter here isn’t actually a matter of rights, but a matter of the powers of Congress. If the First Amendment had been phrased as “The People shall have the right to free exercise of religion”, then one might make a case that “The People” means citizens, and that noncitizens thus don’t have that right. > > But it’s not phrased that way. Instead, it’s “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. The Constitution certainly applies to Congress, and so Congress is limited in that way, no matter what citizenship any individuals might hold. And couldn’t such a policy be considered an establishment of religion? Let’s assume an extreme case they allow free immigration (you just have to show up) to anybody who can demonstrate a dedicated protestant background, and strictly forbid the immigration of people belonging to any other religion. Shouln’t this be constructed, in intent and/or in effect as an attempt to to turn the USA into the “Christian nation” some hope for? And as being detrimental to all non-protestant American citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/89 "2015-11-29T23:39:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I thought that when congress acted to repeal the law decades later that then referencing what the courts ruled regarding those cases is mostly a moot point. > > Going back to the matter **Chronos** commented about how this could go to the courts, I think a lot will depend on how much the federal or state governments turn their inhumanity up to 11. > > I do think looking at other refugees that were denied by political reasons should be mentioned, particularly because I was part of that group. > > [http://www.uscis.gov/laws/legal-settlement-notices/american-baptist-churches-v-thornburgh-abc-settlement-agreement](http://www.uscis.gov/laws/legal-settlement-notices/american-baptist-churches-v-thornburgh-abc-settlement-agreement) > IMHO one has to notice that it was for religious and humanitarian reasons that groups like the American Baptist Churches resorted to the law because they were the affected groups, not the refugees. The end result however was that the refugees were accepted as such and that the Reagan administration essentially lost the case. > > Religion then was not an issue in that case, but to me something similar can take place, many groups that help Syrian refugees are being confronted by governors like the one in Texas that want to prevent any aid to the refugees; while the religion of the refugees will not be a reason for the complaint it has to be noted that since there is no reason to deal with the religion issue the courts would indeed find it odd if states or the federal government (if a Republican wins) would try to make the argument that the religion of the refugees that are affected should be an issue. > > What I think it will happen is that the courts will inform the defendants that attempting to plug in religion as a condition to prevent refugees from coming to their states will get them eventually in contempt of the courts if they do not drop it, this will be a refugee issue plain and simple. The end result however is that mostly Muslins will benefit as most Syrians are of that faith anyhow. It’s moot as to those specific laws, yes. But the takeaway is that the courts did not strike down those laws, meaning Congress can enact them again. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/90 "2015-12-09T17:09:05Z")
And directly on point, though 2 weeks late, [Volokh](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/banning-muslims-from-entering-the-u-s-is-a-very-bad-idea-but-it-may-be-constitutionally-permissible/)weighs in: > [@](#): > > …in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court applied the “plenary power doctrine” to the exclusion of people based on their political beliefs, despite the Free Speech Clause. The cases that Posner is referring to, together with Kleindienst, suggest that the exclusion of people based on their religious beliefs is likewise constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/91 "2015-12-09T17:36:58Z")
It’s worth pointing out that even if constitutional (and I think it is), this policy is unworkable for any number of other reasons. First, excluding Muslim diplomats and businesspeople will basically mean instant international sanctions. Second, there are a lot of people we’re not allowed to exclude by treaty (such as the approximately one quarter of UN employees and consular officers who work in New York). ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/92 "2015-12-09T18:28:36Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > I don’t think refugees from Britain is a thing… You can be a refugee regardless of what country you’re fleeing from. The state department, and the UN, say that Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion So when the UK starts blowing up global warming skeptics like they threatened to do a while back they would qualify. BTW I’m not sure that most Syrian refugees would qualify however. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/93 "2015-12-09T18:52:50Z")
> [@](#): > > … > (2) The policy toward aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the Government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference; and\* it cannot be said that the power has been so unreasonably or harshly exercised by Congress in this Act as to warrant judicial interference\*. Pp. 588-590. > … So that’s the criteria? The judiciary have to determine the law is “unreasonable and harsh”? I assume the right to set immigration quotas by country is not unreasonable (by grounds of race, religion, colour, etc.) because it applies to all countries equally and the quotas are relatively evenly allocated based on population and demand - so nobody is actually being unfairly discriminated against. The government obviously has a need and duty to limit overall immigration numbers, and this is the process they have chosen. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/94 "2015-12-09T19:12:25Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > So that’s the criteria? The judiciary have to determine the law is “unreasonable and harsh”? Yes. AFAIK, they’ve never made such a finding. Our immigration quotas certainly aren’t “relatively evenly allocated” as to either population or demand, but that’s neither here nor there. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/95 "2015-12-09T19:31:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > A simple application does not confer US constitutional protection. If it did, the constitution would be a blanket that would cover the world. I don’t understand this point. Even if somebody made application to the U.S. and thereby received U.S. constitutional protections, how would that cover the world? The United States would be forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise of his/her/its religion, but the U.S. Constitution does not purport to bind Guatemala or France or Saudi Arabia. The United States would be compelled to provide an attorney in criminal cases brought under U.S. law, but the Sixth Amendment says nothing about criminal cases brought under Russian or British or Argentine law. “U.S. constitutional protection” refers to the relationship between the person and the United States government. In general, I think it worth noting that relying upon very old cases (e.g., the Chinese Exclusion Act jurisprudence) may not be valid because ideals and standards change even when laws don’t. For example, _Plessy v. Ferguson_ was once good law, and there were no relevant constitutional changes between it and _Brown v. Board_, but the court reached opposing verdicts anyway because society changed. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/96 "2015-12-09T19:37:21Z")
Well, that’s not quite accurate. \*Brown \*did not expressly overrule _Plessy_ (though high school history texts say otherwise), since the latter applied only to public railcars and \*Brown \*applied only in the context of public primary education. But it’s certainly true that today’s SCOTUS might not feel bound by _Chae Chan Ping_. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/97 "2015-12-09T20:18:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes. AFAIK, they’ve never made such a finding. Our immigration quotas certainly aren’t “relatively evenly allocated” as to either population or demand, but that’s neither here nor there. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, that’s not quite accurate. \*Brown \*did not expressly overrule _Plessy_ (though high school history texts say otherwise), since the latter applied only to public railcars and \*Brown \*applied only in the context of public primary education. > > But it’s certainly true that today’s SCOTUS might not feel bound by _Chae Chan Ping_. But basically - see this: [http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet](http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet) In recent decades the court could not make a finding that immigration limits discriminated harshly and unreasonably, because with all the different options and opportunities - they don’t. It remains to be seen if a harsh and unreasonable discrimination against a particular races or religions (this age’s two major trigger categories) would in fact move the courts to act. And whether an outright ban is sufficient to move the courts. Presumably the point of all the discussion above is that the other branches have a wide latitude to act in accordance with their wishes, but are not totally immune from judicial review. It’s a bad idea to try and second-guess any judge, especially the Supremes. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/98 "2015-12-09T20:28:27Z")
I’m not second guessing. I’m first-guessing. And the default assumption is always that the existing case law controls. That’s why nobody litigates constitutional issues under the Privileges & Immunities Clause (with a very few exceptions) even though pretty much everyone agrees the Slaughterhouse Cases were wrongly decided. And why nobody challenges baseball’s exclusive antitrust exemption even though SCOTUS _itself_ said the underlying case was wrongly decided. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/99 "2015-12-09T21:55:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m not second guessing. I’m first-guessing. And the default assumption is always that the existing case law controls. That’s why nobody litigates constitutional issues under the Privileges & Immunities Clause (with a very few exceptions) even though pretty much everyone agrees the Slaughterhouse Cases were wrongly decided. And why nobody challenges baseball’s exclusive antitrust exemption even though SCOTUS _itself_ said the underlying case was wrongly decided. This is a huge nitpick, but I pick because I care 🙂 It’s Privileges OR immunities, not AND. The AND phrasing is from Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, the OR phrasing is from the 14th amendment and was argued in Slaughterhouse. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390/100 "2015-12-09T22:12:31Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > I don’t understand this point. Even if somebody made application to the U.S. and thereby received U.S. constitutional protections, how would that cover the world? It was an exaggeration for effect, but essentially anyone could apply and then would gain incremental protections. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-restricting-immigration-from-muslims-be-unconstitutional/738390.md?page=6)