Courtesy Dan Piraro, bizarro.com
In a recent commentary (Notables and Quotables), a regular reader to this site responded to comments I made about GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump:
“I would point out historically, that U.S. Code Law 1182, passed in 1952 by a Democratic House and Senate said the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States…
“This was used by President Jimmy Carter to ban Iranians from coming here and was used to deport several thousand Iranian students (after the Hostage taking). … When people call Trump a nut-case for saying ‘no more Muslims until we figure this out’ he stands on law.”
I was curious about both the law and Carter’s actions, so I did some research. I quickly discovered that there are plenty of conservative-leaning websites that tout the legality of Trump’s proposed ban. However, I wanted to find objective information minus political spin.
The law began as The McCarran-Walter Act, sponsored by House Representatives Francis E. Walter (D-PA), and Pat McCarran (D-NV). The Act was designed to revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality. It passed a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. However, President Truman vetoed the bill on the grounds that it was “un-American” and discriminatory. Both the House and Senate overrode Truman’s veto, and the Bill formally became law on June 27, 1952.
Under the terms of the law, a U.S. President does have the power to ban individuals from entering the country. In fact, long before the 1952 law, “in 1932 President Roosevelt and the State Department essentially shut down immigration during the Great Depression as immigration went from 236,000 in 1929 to 23,000 in 1933,” according to Wikipedia.
A closer look at the law reveals the following specifics.
Briefly, 8 U.S. Code Law 1182 – “Inadmissible aliens: defines inadmissible aliens with health-related communicable diseases, conviction of certain crimes, multiple criminal convictions, controlled substance traffickers, prostitution and commercialized vice, certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity who have asserted immunity from prosecution, foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, significant traffickers in persons, and money laundering if the Attorney General has reason to believe that the alien is engaged in terrorist activities, immigrant membership in totalitarian party [at the time, this was listed as Communist], participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing, association with terrorist organizations, and recruitment or use of child soldiers, to name but a few of the details.”
While it was passed in 1952 and parts of the original Act remain, it has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965. It was this modified act that President Carter referred to in 1980.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) lists Carter’s “Executive Order 12172 — Delegation of authority with respect to entry of certain aliens into the United States.”
According to the conservative website Newsmax (Dec. 9, 2015), “In a 1980 speech, Carter stated, ‘The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.’
On the surface, this sounds like an apples-to-apples comparison between Trump’s statement – a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” – and Carter’s executive order. However, Snopes (Dec. 9, 2015), a website dedicated to checking the veracity of rumors and stories, took a closer look.
“Stripped of context (and if readers squinted very hard), Carter’s remarks bore a passing resemblance to Trump’s proposal. However, the announcement’s title (‘Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions’) suggested that the passage was part of a larger foreign policy strategy undertaken in response to a specific crisis, which was clear to those who read [Carter’s] speech in full:
“ ‘Ever since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women — their safety, their health, and their future — have been our central concern. We’ve made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.’
“Carter addressed the then-ongoing Iranian hostage crisis,” Snopes writes, “(which lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981) in the opening portion of his remarks:
“ ‘The events of the last few days,’ Carter said, ‘have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.’
“In a broader context of an ongoing, direct conflict between Iran and the United States,” Snopes says, “Carter announced immediate sanctions on Iran, which included a cessation of diplomatic relations, a prohibition on trade, and assessment of previously-frozen Iranian Government assets. Along with several other sanctions, Carter ordered the cancellation of Iranian-U.S. visas and a moratorium on new visas, with exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations. After listing the intended sanctions, Carter explained the United States’ impetus for them:
“ ‘In order to minimize injury to the hostages,’ Carter announced, ‘the United States has acted at all times with exceptional patience and restraint in this crisis. We have supported Secretary-General Waldheim’s activities under the U.N. Security Council mandate to work for a peaceful solution. We will continue to consult with our allies and other friendly governments on the steps we are now taking and on additional measures which may be required.
“ ‘I am committed to resolving this crisis. I am committed to the safe return of the American hostages and to the preservation of our national honor. The hostages and their families, indeed all of us in America, have lived with the reality and the anguish of their captivity for five months. The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.’
“Carter,” Snopes continues, “explicitly outlined the reasons behind the issuance of sanctions (including visa cancellation for Iranian nationals) and underscored his intent to pressure Iran’s regime. By contrast, Trump’s proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy, and one directed at all adherents of a particular religion (regardless of their nationalities) rather than citizens of a particular country. Moreover, Carter’s sanctions occurred during a lengthy period of escalating conflict between Iran and the United States (while U.S. hostages remained in foreign captivity), but Trump’s proposal came in response to a mass shooting perpetrated by an American citizen and his immigrant wife.
“Finally, Carter’s sanctions were applied to Iranian nationals as part of a clear objective to secure the release of the U.S. hostages without military intervention, whereas Trump’s suggestion applied to a far broader cross-section of visa applicants, which he described as a measure to prevent terrorist attacks.”
On the matter of whether Trump’s ban is constitutional, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said, “I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution. Both the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
“Tribe, a constitutional law expert,” NBC News reports, “said Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. ‘It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.’ ”
“Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be ‘impossible to administer’ and ‘stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists.’ ”
When asked how his plan would work in practice, Trump responded “They [border agents] would ask, ‘Are you Muslim?’ ”
In typical Trump fashion, when asked days later if would like to modify his stance, Trump cited Franklin Roosevelt’s forced internment of Japanese-Americans at the beginning of World War II as justification – a move that most scholars have long viewed as a black mark on the Roosevelt legacy.
Would Donald Trump’s plan calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. hold up based on 8 U.S. Code Law 1182? It’s highly doubtful. While President Carter targeted individuals by nationality, Trump’s plan targets individuals by ideology.
52 comments… add one
If I were attempting to debunk claims of exaggeration and misinformation, I would avoid quoting Snopes as a reliable source. You have the ability to do better research than they, unless you subscribe to their past demonstrated bias of cherry-picking sources to support their preconceived results.
While I always appreciate comments from readers, this reader is making their own incorrect assumptions concerning the conclusions made by Snopes regarding President Jimmy Carter’s speech. So, let me make it easier and clearer.
1) Here is the complete text of President Carter’s speech taken from The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara’s website. If you read the entire speech, the conclusions made by Snopes appear accurate. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233
2) Further, Snopes said that the Iranian Hostage Crisis “lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981.” According to the University of Maryland Baltimore County, “The Iran Hostage Crisis lasted from 1979-1981…for 444 days.”
http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/lessondisplay.php?lesson=70
If Snopes is guilty of “cherry-picking” information in this particular story to fit their own conclusions, I don’t see it, and invite readers to review Carter’s complete speech and then tell me where Snopes has manipulated or misrepresented Carter’s words.
News flash for you, Jim. Carter’s speech, that you keep referring to, does not encompass the law that is in question, nor is it the law. The speech only builds from it.
If a person reads the LAW without regard to the speech you keep suggesting encompasses this law and is the only basis for its interpretation, the intent becomes clear. All you are doing in convoluting the law which had empowered Carter in his speech and policy with all your references to his speech and other biased commentators as if they have some special understanding of the clear language of the Law in question.
Why don’t you invite people to read the constitutional law instead of this “speech”? Me thinks you are reaching for straws.
Thanks for your comments, Michael.
In response to your question: “Why don’t you invite people to read the constitutional law instead of this ‘speech’?”
I do!
I offer readers a direct link to the law’s origin (The McCarran-Walter Act), and the law itself (8 U.S. Code Law 1182).
In my comments (directly above yours,) I was responding to a reader’s comments concerning the veracity of the website, Snopes.
Regarding the central issue of my commentary, namely, Donald Trump’s statement calling for a temporary ban on all Muslims, MSNBC reported (Dec.7, 2015):
“Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf said that while U.S. policy ‘routinely applies different immigration rules for nationals of different countries,’ Trump’s proposal to only exclude ‘foreign nationals who are Muslim’ would likely be ‘unconstitutional.’
“Dorf, an expert in constitutional law, noted that three years ago, the House ‘passed a resolution expressing regret for the Chinese Exclusion laws, which were based on ethnic prejudice,’ and he told MSNBC ‘Immigration policy based on religious prejudice would be equally odious.’
“Assessing Trump’s plan, Stanford Law professor Jenny Martinez said ‘Excluding all people of a particular religion from entering the country on the sole basis of their religion would, in my view, clearly violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.’
“Martinez, an expert in international law, added that the only legal support for such an approach comes in older, discredited cases. ‘To the extent there are precedents for this kind of blanket discrimination,’ she told MSNBC, ‘they are ones, like the Japanese internment camps upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu, which all reasonable constitutional experts consider tragic mistakes that we should not repeat.’ ”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-anti-muslim-proposal-probably-illegal
I do, however, appreciate the lively debate on this issue.
On the matter of whether Trump’s ban is constitutional, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said, “I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution. Both the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
“Tribe, a constitutional law expert,” NBC News reports, “said Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. ‘It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.’ ” – Although he has backed off on banning Muslims, he was accurate in what he stated. Also Article VI “no Religious Test Clause” does not apply to what Trump proposed. Article VI applies to Federal Workers. http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/135/religious-test
I am not a law professor, or expert in Constitutional Law, but, I like you, had to research what was presented. Anyone could read what this Professor says and they would believe it. However, research it, and it is an overreach. (My opinion only) Also, the Preamble of our Constitution is very important, as it talks about the Citizens of the United States; “We the People”; “domestic tranquility”; “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are powerful words, ones that need to be respected.
“Assessing Trump’s plan, Stanford Law professor Jenny Martinez said ‘Excluding all people of a particular religion from entering the country on the sole basis of their religion would, in my view, clearly violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.’ ~ Amendment VIV Section I of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection does not apply to those seeking to enter the United States, it applies to those who already in the United States.
Thanks for your comments, Monique.
You are, of course, technically correct in your precise reading of Article VI.
However, if you read the Tribe quote carefully, he said, “Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.”
Using the terms “general prohibition” and “the spirit of,” Tribe is not overreaching, but rather he is interpreting two aspects of the Constitution, strongly suggesting that if Trump became president and ordered such a ban, it would quickly be challenged in federal court.
While you may find legal experts who side with Trump on this issue, the bottom line is Congress would have the ultimate say over Trump’s ban, and at this point in time, most Republicans in Congress do not agree with such a ban.
My personal take is that Trump does have the legal right to prevent the immigration of all radical Islamist. Those whose intent is to overthrow our government and constitution. All immigrants should be vetted, irregardless of country or religion. All immigration must be legal! If the law is not clear and absolute in this regard, it is time to rewrite our immigration laws. We must protect our constitution, not allow persons whose beliefs dictate a disobedience of the existing Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Do not change to accommodate those who only want their idealology imposed upon all Americans! And that is in in line with our Constitution. We accept many religions in this wonderful country, including muslims. But as one muslim friend tells me, they do not want radicals here. They love the USA and do not wish to have it destroyed by a group that really does not even adhere to the rules of Islam. So if the immigration of those who wishing to come to our land is delayed while they are being vetted, so be it!
Your apparent primary point, within your rambling comparison between Carter’s intentions and a Trump’s, is essentially that one mass killing by a couple of refugees is acceptable and by itself does not require immigration action. I’m guessing you, and anyone who drinks the koolaid you serve might think differently had a relative been killed; or better yet, if you had to face the barrels of their guns yourself. Survivors still suffer from nightmares, but hey, it’s just one incident – why all the fuss? Right?
You are absolutely Correct! Read about the ONE, a “woman” who wrote for “SNOPES” this “Article” & See what’s written at the END OF IT..SHE was found in 2002 to be Wrong, Not sure if they called it intentional LIES, But either way, WRONG< so what happens? Obummer through an E/O of course, & without Congress, Of Course, made HER A WRITER FOR SNOPES..Hum..Bet Most know Nothing about ANY of this..yet, it's there to read..all about it..I haven't TRUSTED "SNOPES" for some time..More & More I found THEM To be the ONES Who Are..NOT "TELLING OR WRITING About the REAL..TRUTHS. SO, I always fact check, & they are most definitely "TAINTED"..
I completely agree. While the author and I likely share few political beliefs, I thought it was well written until I saw Snopes. I laugh at the inclusion.
“However, I wanted to find objective information minus political spin.”You state this but then use Snopes,the most left leaning spincentric reference source available??? SMFH…
You may or may not have had a good case to present, but I immediately lost interest in reading your case after you posted the insulting title, and your liberal cartoon. Before you act all high and mighty, you may want to learn how to be civil and interact with people. Apparently two skills you never learned, and way too common these days!
Your article, while informative, only sites the one incident of a Muslim and his wife killing innocent people as the reason Trump wants to stop Muslims from entering the U.S. until “we can figure out what is going on.” What about the Boston Marathon attack? What about ISIS’s beheading innocent people? What about the attacks in France and Brussels? The omission of those attacks and other barbaric acts by ISIS renders your case invalid.
The Boston bombers where former citizens of Chechnya a country NOT on Trumps list.
Jim,
Redardless of what country they were from, They WERE pledging their allegiance to radical Islamic groups, right?? And I am pretty sure they were Muslim as well. I can’t believe that it’s so hard for SOME Americans to see that this country (and many other countries) has/have accepted people from all different countries, that practice all different types of religions. Other than Ireland, which has had the historical Catholic/Protestant feud that’s been goingoing on forever, the people from all the different religions were living together pretty peacefully. Well, at least they weren’t killing each other over a difference in who GOD is.
I think Carter used 8 USC 1185 which is listed as ‘Travel control of citizens and aliens’. I very much appreciated your article. This is where I found some reliable info https://www.truthorfiction.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranians-from-entering-the-u-s/
I find Carter’s use of the law WORSE! By your own admission: “While President Carter targeted individuals by nationality, Trump’s plan targets individuals by ideology.”
So, someone can be banned from the USA for something they have absolutely no control over, but not for an ideology, something they DO have control over? That would be like banning those of African descent, and that is OK, but banning Nazis isnt. “…’splain it to me Lucy…”?
Ross, you might want to re-read the entire commentary and note the comparisons:
“Carter,” Snopes continues, “explicitly outlined the reasons behind the issuance of sanctions (including visa cancellation for Iranian nationals) and underscored his intent to pressure Iran’s regime. By contrast, Trump’s proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy, and one directed at all adherents of a particular religion (regardless of their nationalities) rather than citizens of a particular country. Moreover, Carter’s sanctions occurred during a lengthy period of escalating conflict between Iran and the United States (while U.S. hostages remained in foreign captivity), but Trump’s proposal came in response to a mass shooting perpetrated by an American citizen and his immigrant wife.
“Finally, Carter’s sanctions were applied to Iranian nationals as part of a clear objective to secure the release of the U.S. hostages without military intervention, whereas Trump’s suggestion applied to a far broader cross-section of visa applicants, which he described as a measure to prevent terrorist attacks.”
Further, as Constitutional legal scholar Lawrence Tribe notes: “I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution.”
I fully support Trump’s proposed immigration ban, and I deem it far less of a trespass on our Constitution than President Obama’s government by executive decree–the learned Laurence Tribe notwithstanding.
Mr. Trump’s statements, re: Muslims and immigration, have always and ever been to temporarily suspend entry of Muslims into the U.S. whose citizenship rests in nations where ISIS-related turmoil is present, not Muslims e.g. from Bolivia, Israel, or Ireland. And a temporary suspension of entry is to allow the government to establish and enforce the adequate vetting of applicants.
Here’s how Trump’s proposal dovetails with the original intent of the Act of 1952 and [President] Carter’s application of the Act of 1952 in the 1970’s. In 1952, it was applied against an ideology–Communism by Carter, against a foreign hostile nation; by Trump, against a religious ideology that has declared war on the U.S. As for the constitutionality of Trump’s proposal, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments–in this case the 14th–are applicable to U.S. citizens and aliens legally resident in the U.S. The history of SCOTUS’s inconsistent application of the 14th makes a certain banning of Trump’s proposal hardly a slam dunk, especially if he appoints one or two conservative justices to the court.
Three points:
1.) “Mr. Trump’s statements, re: Muslims and immigration, have always and ever been to temporarily suspend entry of Muslims into the U.S. whose citizenship rests in nations where ISIS-related turmoil is present…”
That is incorrect.
Here is Mr. Trump’s original statement from Dec. 8, 2015:
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
On June 26, 2016, Mr. Trump changed his stance:
“We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place.”
What is the current U.S. vetting process?
David Inserra, Policy Analyst, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, offers a detailed explanation.
2.) “In 1952, it was applied against an ideology–Communism by Carter, against a foreign hostile nation…”
That is incorrect.
After the Act underwent several modifications, President Carter used the 1965 Act to implement a Presidential Directive: “The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”
Carter’s intentions were to compel Iran to release Americans held hostage which failed.
3.) “[used]…by Trump, against a religious ideology that has declared war on the U.S.”
That is only partially correct.
Trump is calling for a ban on individuals based on religious ideology. However, the Muslim faith has not declared war on the U.S., only a small, extremist element has.
Once I got past the irony [of] a person who appears to be a Democrat or liberal posting a story on a web site with “ethics” in the name, I read your story because you claimed to want to find objective sources. But after reading it, I agree with Mr. Frank’s comment. Snopes has long been known not to be the reliable truth teller it proclaims to be, and falls into the same category as Wikipedia, namely sources you should view with suspicion, and one you certainly should not cite as a objective source.
Thanks for your comments, Mike.
In case you missed it, however, in response to Bruce Frank I offered two independent sites (see below) that back-up the information originally put forth by Snopes.
1) Here is the complete text of President Carter’s speech taken from The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara’s website. If you read the entire speech, the conclusions made by Snopes appear accurate. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233
2) Further, Snopes said that the Iranian Hostage Crisis “lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981.” According to the University of Maryland Baltimore County, “The Iran Hostage Crisis lasted from 1979-1981…for 444 days.”
http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/lessondisplay.php?lesson=70
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
8 USC 1182 (14) (f) “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President- Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate…”
This is settled Federal law. The president can ban anyone for any reason he/she wants to.
You’re an absolute idiot—logic escapes you…
I think the way Trump said he was going to actually do this is what is hilarious and proves his ignorance. When asked how he would do this he responded, “they [border agents] would ask, ‘Are you Muslim?’ ”
So you don’t trust radical Muslims to be here Mr. Trump, but you will believe them at the border when they say, “no I am not Muslim!” Do you realize how IGNORANT that sounds, and anyone that believes this would work is just as IGNORANT to believe it whether or not it violates the constitution or not.
Laughing so hard at this one.
Immediate demands for explanation from and obvious adversary do not often get polite comprehensive explanations. Not everyone bends over backward to be polite to an obvious adversary. And after reading your post and belittlement of the POTUS, you have no high horse to speak from and demand “but he’s the president”. If ignorance is being illustrated here, it is in your reflexive name-calling -30-
I agree with Jay, [above]. I read most of your article, but with the understanding that you were already prejudiced in your response. Presenting your opinion in an article without first characterizing the subject as ignorant, goes a long way in making your point believable.
The heck with the BS. If you were outside playing with your children and a Pitt Bull comes cruising down the street, do you allow the dog to approach your children or do you rush your children in the house? That’s what I thought!!! Common sense people! We have to protect ourselves! If a few good people can’t get in, so be it! We didn’t create their situation and we’re not making it worse, we’re just helping ours!
So now we’re comparing people who have gone through, on average, a two-year vetting process to enter our country to “Pitt Bulls” … and that’s your idea of “common sense”?
Voltaire said it best, “Common sense is not so common.”
They are being flown in with NO papers–in the dead of night–by the refugee pirates and “religious” groups that our government is paying to betray us.
Jim… give everyone a break and dispense with all the pc and legal crap!! We’ve been to the moon and back 6 times, the POTUS, congress, homeland security, et. al. can decide a safe, legal means to prevent radical jihadists from entering America, whether temporary or not. NOT doing ANYTHING to PREVENT this radical muslim curse that’s destroying Europe and Scandinavia from entering the United States of America is irresponsible and a primary violation of the POTUS’ constitutional duty to protect the citizens of this great country. Let’s face facts without all the politically correct nonsense: is it more important to be concerned about a muslim who wants to emigrate, or the will and safety of American citizens? America has zero obligation to accept the world’s poor and suffering yearning to breathe free. That was a loooong time ago and no longer applies as the world exists today. Lastly, to suggest to Mr. Welch that he’s comparing wannabe jihadi radicals, or sincere muslims wanting to come to this country, which they have zero right to do, to pitt bulls is unwarranted, silly and stupid in the least.
Any immigration without assimilation is Invasion by enemy forces!
Jim Lichtman is obviously a very intelligent idiot….my opinion. Jim be sure to thank me for my comment.
Oh darn…my comment is awaiting moderation….hmmm…..what is going to be moderated?
Jim, one of the things that pretty much all liberal mined individuals do that just drives me up the wall is they continue to insist and believe Constitutional rights and privileges apply to non-citizens just as they do for American citizens. Jim, THEY DO NOT!!! Until an immigrant has gone through the process and satisfied all of the legal requirements to become a US citizen and takes the oath of citizenship (one of which is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which Muslims are forbidden from doing because it violates their religion), they have no Constitutional rights. Instead they are subject to the laws that have been enacted and which apply to non-citizens who are granted TEMPORARY/CONDITIONAL legal entry into the US by law. As is the American way, we seek to treat all visitors to our country in ways that are welcoming and respectful. We want them to feel as at home in our country as possible, but the fact remains they are not citizens and thus it is expected they will conduct themselves in a manner befitting an invited guest. The US Government reserves the right to deny any application or request for entry and can revoke ones legal entry at any time for any violation of the given terms for entry. Again, stop thinking a student or guest worker here on visa from Saudi Arabia has the same rights as you and I. They simply do not.
I remain suspicious- this article references Snopes, which is known to be a husband-wife team that has contributed to the Democratic National Committee and has been discredited before. Secondly, the article cites a Harvard “law professor” who has ties to NBC- a network which has repeatedly crafted misleading, false and “fake” news. Thirdly, the author of this article starts it off with a Bizzaro cartoon which depicts Trump as a Neanderthal. The “bias” is clear.
While Carter may’ve been somewhat specific in his EO regarding Iranians, I believe Trump also has reasonable latitude to use the McCarrin-Walter Act as, while not all Muslim followers engage in terrorism, all terrorists attribute their acts and following to the Muslim religion. Refusing entry into the United States, until a thorough vetting can be made, seems reasonable and prudent to me.
The Constitution applies to Americans not aliens. Keep that in mind and all the rest is moot. You can’t apply it to aliens,proved by the fact that it doesn’t apply to Americans in foriegn countries.
President Trump would have the authority to remove resident aliens by using the court that was established in 1996. It is called the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court. It has never been used but is still a valid court and can be used.
It was established under 8 U.S. Code Subchapter V.
While the constitutionality may be in question, Trump will first need a new/amended law. Then the Supreme Court can decide.
The McCarran-Walter Act was amended in 1990. The Immigration Act of 1990 does appear to require more specificity than a religious affiliation, e.g. “Muslim”. The government must know or have “reasonable grounds to believe” that an alien satisfies specific “grounds for exclusion”.
“https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/11/18/mccarran-walter-act-reborn/389a81bf-00ac-434b-b869-3d3e29b13eae/?utm_term=.6c626abbfef9
“…the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act is gone. In one of its last acts, the 101st Congress repealed this embarrassing remnant of the McCarthy era, a law that permitted the exclusion and expulsion of immigrants with politically “incorrect” beliefs and associations.”
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/03/04/IMMACT1990.pdf
An Act
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to change the level, and preference system for admission, of immigrants to the United States, and to provide for administrative naturalization, and for other purposes.
101st Congress Nov. 29, 1990 104 STAT. 4978 ______________ [S. 358]
PL 101-649 IMMIGRATION ACT of 1990
TITLE VI–EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION
SEC. 601. REVISION OF GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION.
“(B) Terrorist activities.–
“(i) In general.–Any alien who–
“(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity, or
“(II) a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iii)), is excludable.
Considering 8 out of the 10 largest Muslim counties in the world are unaffected by this, the statements that this is a ban on Muslims is just another fake news headline.
While I appreciate your research and open dialog on the subject of the immigration ban, I must disagree with your position. As much as I was never a fan of the Carter administration I did agree with his ban then and I do agree with the current ban now. I don’t know how old you are so I don’t know if you know much true middle east ideology from experience. I was in the military during the mentioned Iranian hostage crisis. I wont, in fact I cant go into those details but I can tell you I was in the middle east during that time and the hatred for the USA was real and in fact still is real today. Many in the various governments and factions and religious groups would like nothing more than to see the downfall of the USA. With that said it would only seem prudent to enact a ban until we can formulate a vetting process to weed out those who perpetuate that ideology. While it is distasteful the thought of turning someone away it must be done to insure the safety of those present on our shores. Thanks for the article! – Jim
Really! What Trump said in a campaign speech, versus his recent action are not identical. Quoting a leftwing/progressives including “a constitutional” lawyer, re totally irrelevant and misleading… Tribe? How close to the Constitution does Ginsberg follow… get your facts straight.
My disappointment is not only in you but, in President Carter, not coming to the defense of a President, wo is attempting to protect the people of the United States, as he has sworn to do… revisit and correct your biased comments.
Yeah so Trump only banded Muslims from 7 different countries fraught with extremism, terrorism, torture, and countless enemies of the state. Not just Muslims as you sir stated.
All the countries in Europe, who have allowed in Muslim immigrants and so called ‘refugees’, are now in CRISIS and suffering. Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, who have refused to allow in Moslems, don’t require heavily armed police, guarding sites and walking the streets, as you see in Germany, France, Belgium. Swedish police are overwhelmed with the Moslem crime rate. Islam is not compatible with civilization. They all worship their allah and follow his koran. They hide their plan to take over, until their number is high enough, then they could care less about their host countries laws and customs.
A lot of say about nothing. So what’s the point about this article? America has an incredible problem….Minimal vetting. Temporary suspensions is a starting point. Previous administrations, including Obama’s, did their share of deportations. Let’s calm down and give Trump a chance.
I would suggest reading this section of the statute under discussion, while it may be eventually ruled unconstitutional, as of now, it does seem to me to provide the President to suspend the entry into the US of a class (group) of aliens for any reason or no reason, no?(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
I am not sure all comments are directed at my entry or just general statements but just in case –
Bill D – “The order also says that the administration should “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” I my opinion, that sounds like a religious test.
Jim – I did not state a position on the ban, I only suggested that current law did not support it. (Easily side stepped by the EO.) I have no doubt that you are correct and that the U. S. Is hated – I am old, was currently serving, and remember the times quite well. The question people differ on, I think, is if the ban, as promulgated by President Trump, is the appropriate means to counteract that hate and terorrism that results. I haven’t decided for myself yet. There are studies claiming that a blanket ban has more costs than benefits.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis
Some Guy – I agree with you. But I still wonder if the ban, as instituted, is the best we could do. I guess we’ll find out.
Barb – yes European countries let in a lot in a hurry – with little or no vetting. If you believed that Obama’s carried out adequate 18 – 24 month vetting, then the situations are not the same. If you don’t, then, I see your point. I, personally, accept that adequate vetting did occur – admittedly on the word of the government.
Terry – same answer: was current vetting adequate or not? I believe it was. I have been giving President Trump a chance. And I certainly hope that what we have seen the first week is not a precursor of what we will see in the future.
It is legal already…Per U.S. Code Law 1182
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
It may not sit well with many, but it is legal. People from certain regions of the world are a perceived threat and until proven otherwise, not allowed to come in.
With regard to a wall it is my understanding that there already is both a physical wall ( thought not long) and a virtual wall in place so all Trump is proposing is finishing it, as for immigration the laws to which you refer were written in a different world and are out of date the with the current world climate, while many who wish to go to the US may be good people there are also many who just want to watch it burn so imposing stricter checks on those that come is prudent not to is suicidal also as even you know laws can be changed and in the case of immigration need to be.
This really gave me hope. I came to the realization that you can always make something right and justify depending on the amount, or lack, of research. This article is well written and very convincing, but many in the comments dissected it and forced the author to defend his point. The hours spent researching just for comments on this forum I know not, but it gives me great hope knowing some people actually still research instead of believing every single fact they hear, whether on the mainstream news or a wild conservative post.
However, in bare legal terms, he’s banning them from specific regions where extreme Islam is embodied right now. It’s not as much as a religion as it is a “location” thing, however, religion definitely plays a big role.
“Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
This sole sub-clause of US Code 1182, left in context, proves Trump’s actions legit. This fact is irrefutable.
I would not try to defend some of the rhetoric used by Trump before making this move, BUT this could never be viewed as a ban on Muslims, because only seven so-called Muslim nations are on the list. That means that Muslims from all other countries can still enter. These are the countries that Obama declared in 2011 to be significant hot beds for terrorists, so the ban is justified, which is not to say that it is the right thing to do. When we look at the terrorism that has taken place in Europe over the last few years, and the nationalities of those involved, one could easily justify President Trump’s action.