Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Trump's Muslim registry wouldn't be illegal, constitutional law experts say
Posted by:
Trump won big
()
Date: November 17, 2016 08:50AM
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Wednesday that “a president’s power is at its apex at the nation’s borders” and that the Supreme Court has “consistently reaffirmed the power of the president to control the entry and exit from the country as a matter of national security.” Such precedent, he said would give Trump’s administration a decided advantage in any litigation.
Immigration law would afford the government special advantages, Temple University international law professor Peter Spiro said, because it exists in a “parallel universe” where many of the constitutional protections afforded in other legal situations do not apply. He said “discrimination on the basis of nationality is something that, again, one finds all over the immigration law, and in a nonimmigration context would almost certainly not withstand the equal-protection challenges.”
Even Trump’s original proposal to bar all Muslims from entering the country could potentially end up passing a constitutional test, Spiro said, telling POLITICO that “my guess is that a court would strike that down, but it’s not clear, actually.” That Trump has backed away from that position, taken during the GOP primary, and assumed the more legally defensible “extreme vetting” one, is evidence, Spiro said, that he was given legal advice on the issue. “Kris Kobach knows his stuff. And I assume it was Kobach or somebody else [who] got to Trump and Trump was changing his tune,” he said.
Like Spiro, University of Virginia international law professor emeritus David Martin said the NSEERS program is constitutionally sound but fraught with issues as a matter of policy. He said even when it was in effect, NSEERS was “more and more seen as potentially counterproductive” as the Sept. 11 attacks receded in America’s rear-view mirror and the government developed “more of an appreciation that doing certain things that singled out Muslims and were seen as discriminatory were strategically unsound.”
Martin, who was also the general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1995-8 and a principle deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security early in the administration of President Barack Obama, said reconstructing an NSEERS-like system would be a “really bad idea, for a lot of reasons, absent some extreme danger to the country far beyond anything we face now.” But he added that such a program would be “not likely to meet with successful constitutional challenge.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-muslim-registry-constitution-231527
Immigration law would afford the government special advantages, Temple University international law professor Peter Spiro said, because it exists in a “parallel universe” where many of the constitutional protections afforded in other legal situations do not apply. He said “discrimination on the basis of nationality is something that, again, one finds all over the immigration law, and in a nonimmigration context would almost certainly not withstand the equal-protection challenges.”
Even Trump’s original proposal to bar all Muslims from entering the country could potentially end up passing a constitutional test, Spiro said, telling POLITICO that “my guess is that a court would strike that down, but it’s not clear, actually.” That Trump has backed away from that position, taken during the GOP primary, and assumed the more legally defensible “extreme vetting” one, is evidence, Spiro said, that he was given legal advice on the issue. “Kris Kobach knows his stuff. And I assume it was Kobach or somebody else [who] got to Trump and Trump was changing his tune,” he said.
Like Spiro, University of Virginia international law professor emeritus David Martin said the NSEERS program is constitutionally sound but fraught with issues as a matter of policy. He said even when it was in effect, NSEERS was “more and more seen as potentially counterproductive” as the Sept. 11 attacks receded in America’s rear-view mirror and the government developed “more of an appreciation that doing certain things that singled out Muslims and were seen as discriminatory were strategically unsound.”
Martin, who was also the general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1995-8 and a principle deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security early in the administration of President Barack Obama, said reconstructing an NSEERS-like system would be a “really bad idea, for a lot of reasons, absent some extreme danger to the country far beyond anything we face now.” But he added that such a program would be “not likely to meet with successful constitutional challenge.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-muslim-registry-constitution-231527
Re: Trump's Muslim registry wouldn't be illegal, constitutional law experts say
Posted by:
voice of reality speaks truth
()
Date: November 17, 2016 08:55AM
That would be nice for any person entering this Country but lets be real folks............YOU KNOW IT WON'T HAPPEN! LAWSUITS, BLEEDING HEARTS, ETC., WILL PREVENT IT.
You truly need a dictatorship in this Country for something like that to happen. People say Trump will be a dictator but you know in reality this isn't going to happen. So it's just another proposed solution which will fall short.
You truly need a dictatorship in this Country for something like that to happen. People say Trump will be a dictator but you know in reality this isn't going to happen. So it's just another proposed solution which will fall short.