The First Amendment to the US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I suppose one could make the argument that there is a threat to national security. But that would beg a whole slew of lawsuits regarding constitutional questions applying to the Constitution and Congressional and Executive powers.

That's one reason why President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley, and yes even George W. Bush said it while he was President, and many others in the US are saying very clearly that the people who commit terrorist acts such as ISIS are not Muslim. They are not practicing the religion of Islam. They are a terrorist death cult. And that Muslim nations and others should condemn them as such.

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)

16. The Constitution

Reply to lovemydog (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:04 PM

Dec 2015

Doesn't protect the right to immigrate to the US.

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)

20. The Constitution also does not delegate to the federal government power

Reply to TeddyR (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:30 PM

Dec 2015

over immigration, only over naturalization. When the government enacts immigration policies to further compelling foreign policy or economic goals the laws are upheld. If the government's motivation is hatred or nativism, courts apply a strict standard of scrutiny. If the government can accomplish similar goals in a less restrictive manner, the laws are defeated.

JCMach1

(27,574 posts)

4. I have no doubt he just made himself the Republican nominee though...

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:56 PM

Dec 2015

brettdale

(12,384 posts)

5. what have the other gop candiates said

Reply to JCMach1 (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:58 PM

Dec 2015

about trumpy's press release.

JCMach1

(27,574 posts)

7. Not been positive...

Reply to brettdale (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:03 PM

Dec 2015

'on CBS's Face The Nation, N.J. Gov. Chris Christie says that Donald Trump's endorsement of racial and religious profiling in terror invesigations goes too far. "We don't need to be profiling in order to be able to get the job done here."... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/06/christie_responds_to_trump_we_dont_need_to_be_profiling_to_get_the_job_done.html

Here is a grab bag: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/12/07/gop-rivals-condemn-donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-entry-into-u-s/

I have the feeling though that the base is going to eat this up... seriously...

Bucky

(54,068 posts)

6. I have the feeling Trump is just warming up

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:00 PM

Dec 2015

You'd think he'd run out of room on the self-parody, but he's just getting started.

By the end of March he'll be gone, but the end of March can't come soon enough.

hill2016

(1,772 posts)

8. where does the Constitution

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:05 PM

Dec 2015

have anything to say about immigration policy?

JCMach1

(27,574 posts)

10. Good point, he could easily ban immigration from certain countries...

Reply to hill2016 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:09 PM

Dec 2015

along with the Republican Congress were he elected.

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)

13. True.

Reply to JCMach1 (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:18 PM

Dec 2015

A republican Congress and republican President could ban immigration from certain countries. I would be challenged in the courts and may or may not uphold the challenge.

The question of banning solely on the basis of religion is quite interesting.

Judges interpret the Constitution and review laws to determine whether they are Constitutional. There would be lawsuits.

Yet another reason why the appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court justices by the President (with the advice and consent of Congress) is such a critically important executive function.

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)

19. I think the president has the power to set immigration quotas unilaterally. n/t

Reply to JCMach1 (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:10 PM

Dec 2015

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)

12. I posted above a bit about it.

Reply to hill2016 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:10 PM

Dec 2015

One has to look at case law regarding how the Constitution is interpreted. This type of thing is not unprecedented. We as a country have at various times prevented people from some countries from entering the United States. I'm not aware of us ever preventing anyone from entering solely on the basis of their religion. Perhaps others more knowledgable in this matter will chime in on it. I'd also guess there will be articles forthcoming on legal sites like justicia.com.

JCMach1

(27,574 posts)

15. We had quotas before to do the same type of thing...

Reply to lovemydog (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:59 PM

Dec 2015

In order to keep admitting Xtian's ... they would probably still be able to apply for asylum (i.e. not formal immigration). That way the Xtians could work around the quota system.