Attack On Trump’s Immigration Proposal Undercuts Congressional Authority
DETRACTORS HAVE IT WRONG: TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION PROPOSAL
IS CONSTITUTIONAL!
Roger J.
Katz, Attorney at Law
Stephen.
L. D’Andrilli
The
recent attack on Donald Trump is most curious. It is coming not only from
sources that you would have every reason to expect, but from sources that you
would have every good reason not
to expect: Dick
Cheney, former Vice President under George W. Bush; Paul Ryan, Speaker of the
House of Representatives; Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader; and John
Yoo, U.S Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, who
served in the Administration of George W. Bush. These individuals have all
spoken out, vociferously, against Donald Trump’s recent remarks concerning
barring Muslims from entering the Country.
The
mainstream news media and leading Democrats and, oddly enough, the Republican
leadership itself, finds Trump’s comments alarming. But, alarming to whom?
Muslims? Alarming, we see, to those Americans who don’t like Trump’s proposal
and, for that matter, those who don’t like Trump, and who seek to undermine his
campaign by whatever means possible. But, Trump’s proposal should not be alarming
at all to Americans who seek protection from the deadly impact of jihadism –
jihadism that exists around the world and has now made its appearance in the
United States. From that perspective Trump’s proposal is quite modest and
reasonable.
Indeed,
if there is any national security proposal that should be alarming to the
American people it is The
New York Times’ call
for confiscation of firearms from the hands of law-abiding Americans. But, that
proposal, coming from the publishers and editors of a major newspaper, receives
precious little condemnation that it richly deserves. And, it is from major
mainstream newspapers, both left-wing papers, namely and particularly, the New York Times, and conservative newspapers,
too, namely, and particularly, the Wall Street Journal that
we see scathing editorials on Trump – editorials that attack him on both a
personal, visceral level, and on a public policy level. Fortunately, some news
commentators go to bat for Trump.
Andrew
Wilkow, whose radio program, “The Wilkow Majority,” airs on SiriusXM 125,
weekdays, made the perceptive point, on Wednesday, December 9, 2015, that Trump
is being blasted not for what he actually said about barring Muslims from our
shores, but for what he never said. The mainstream media, with assistance from
Republicans themselves, is attacking Trump and, by extension, those Americans
who support him. And, it is important to take note that the attack on Trump is definitely an attack on Americans
themselves.
News
pundits assert that Trump’s immigration policies, barring Muslims from our
Country, until such time as this Nation gets a handle on the problem of Islamic
radicalism, is unconstitutional. The suggestion is that Trump’s proposal is
inconsistent with the First Amendment’s bar against the establishment of
religion clause and free exercise of religion clause. But, Trump never stated that American Muslims – citizens who presently reside in this Country and
who have resided in this Country for some time – cannot or ought not be
permitted to continue to practice their religion, freely. Trump’s proposal
pertains to immigration only. And there is nothing in the Bill of Rights or anywhere
in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from enacting laws or establishing
immigration quotas. So, the assertion that Trump’s immigration proposal is
unconstitutional is false, on its face.
In
fact the U.S. has maintained immigration quotas for decades and, while Congress
essentially abolished immigration quotas through enactment of the Immigration
Act of 1965, Congress can certainly reintroduce a quota system, consistent with
the powers conferred to it in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
If
the mainstream news media, and Government leaders, and news commentators, and,
of late, foreign governments, believe that Trump’s suggestion for reinstatement
of a quota system, temporarily barring Muslims from entering the U.S., is in
fact unconstitutional, they are simply wrong. And, if they know that the
assertion is false, then they are liars as well. There is absolutely nothing in
our Constitution that legally precludes Congress from enacting a law for that
very purpose and, in fact, there is explicit language in the U.S. Constitution
that permits Congress to do just that.
It is
therefore extremely odd to say the least that those who would bring up a legal
issue, where there is none, express no reservation in denying to Americans’
their Constitutional rights, where there clearly exists one.
The
Obama Administration has clearly violated American’s Fourth Amendment right
against unreasonable searches and seizures, through creation of and
implementation of massive surveillance operations and campaigns against all
Americans. And they design new ones every day. That clear violation of
Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights is claimed to be justified on the
ground of national security. It isn’t! And, on Saturday, December 5, 2015, in a
rare front page editorial, the New York Times urged a national campaign to
disarm Americans’ – in clear violation of Americans’ Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms – on the absurd, and disingenuous ground, that taking guns
away from all Americans is the best way to protect Americans from radical
Islam. It won’t!
But,
in the same breath, these Government officials and Government Legislators, and
mainstream news media sources have expressed no reservation in attacking
Trump’s immigration proposal on the ground that his proposal, if implemented,
would violate the First
Amendment establishment clause and free exercise of religion clause when, in fact, there is no
violation of the First
Amendment at
all precisely because the individuals that Trump is talking about aren’t
American citizens. They do not reside in this Country and never did, and should
not be allowed to do so now – especially, given the dire situation in the World
today. That is Trump’s message. That is Trump’s warning. And, there is nothing
in that message to suggest a violation of any American’s First Amendment
Constitutional Rights.
Trump
simply wishes to keep more Muslims out of the Country at the present time and until the Nation’s leaders
get the matter of Islamic extremism under control. Trump said nothing more; and
he said nothing less. He certainly said nothing about arresting and deporting
law-abiding Americans who practice the religion of Islam. And he certainly said
nothing about curtailing the practice of Islam by Americans. And nothing Trump
did say implies such actions. Had he done so, then there would, of course, be reason
to attack Trump’s proposal on First
Amendment Constitutional
grounds. That he did not do, so we gain nothing by pretending that he did. So
there is nothing in Trump’s proposal, if implemented, that would amount to a
violation of the First Amendment. And, the liberal intelligentsia in this Country certainly know this.
What
the liberal intelligentsia do is illustrative of a classic “straw man” fallacy. They set up an argument
for remarks that Trump never made and, for that matter, never implied, and they
attack him on those, rather on the remarks Trump did make and on the sensible
implications of those remarks. There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in
Trump’s proposal that suggests that American Muslims cannot
practice their religion, much less that American Muslims ought
to be deported. So, to say that Trump’s immigration policy conflicts with the
First Amendment is altogether unsound. He is simply addressing an immigration
matter that falls squarely within the powers of Congress.
Curiously,
those who excoriate Trump on his immigration proposal are actually undercutting
Congressional powers and authority. They do so by tacitly asserting that
Congress does not have the authority to preclude
Muslims from entering this Country. That suggestion is patently false. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution, Congress
has the authority and has sole authority to enact laws pertaining to
naturalization – which includes immigration.
To
assert otherwise is to say that Congress is forbidden to exercise its powers under
the Constitution. It is not Trump, then, but his detractors who are asserting
matters that directly and negatively impact the Constitution. Trump’s proposal,
itself, does not raise a legal, statutory issue, much less a Constitutional one
under any scenario.
That
leaves one matter to be discussed: the matter of morality. Trump’s detractors
imply that Trump is attacking American Muslims who live in this Country and
those outside it because his immigration policy is offensive. That may be, but
so what? While some in this Country may condemn Trump’s proposal on moral
grounds, one might reasonably counter that argument by arguing that, to permit
Muslims to enter this Country, at this time, given the present circumstances,
is immoral, too. To allow Muslims into this Country at this time is immoral
precisely because such practice would increase, exponentially, Americans’
susceptibility to acts of violence committed by jihadists. Muslims cannot be
vetted. Government authorities haven’t devised the tools to do so, and they
have admitted as much. So, letting Muslims into this Country, at this point in
time, would definitely make this Country less safe – much less safe for
ordinary Americans. That
certainly would be immoral! Yet,
the attack against Trump continues. Trump, though, is among the few – extremely
few – candidates for U.S. President who actually expresses a desire to protect
this Country from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. He is vilified when
he should be praised. He is roundly denounced when he should be emulated. He is
ridiculed when he should be respected.
Ultimately,
Trump represents a return to sanity in this Country; a return to security for
this Country; a return to the sanctity of the individual; and a return to love
for Country. Those who attack him both within the Republican Party and outside
it, both within this Country and now abroad, are really attacking the millions
of Americans who support Trump.
The
attack against Trump is, then, really an attack against Americans and against
America itself. Those un-American
powers and
forces that control this Republic and who control the Republican Party in
particular are very afraid now, because Trump’s popularity among Americans
continues to wax, rather than wane. Trump is the last candidate these un- American powers and forces want to see
representing the Republican Party. If,
then, the majority of average American citizens, who are Republicans, do select
Trump as their candidate of choice, and if the Party ignores its rank and file
members and goes its own way, nominating a person who can be and will be
controlled – who represents the international, globalist, neoliberal community
– then the jig is most certainly up.
If
the will of the American people is ignored, those that control the Government
apparatus will no longer be able to work their illusions on the public. They
will no longer be able to fool the American people since it will be they, not the American people, who are making the decision as to whom
should lead the Nation. We will know that. And, we will know, too, beyond any
doubt, that the Republic is lost and that the Republic has been very well lost
for quite some time, now.
____________________________________________
Copyright
© 2015 Roger J Katz, Attorney at Law, and Stephen L. D’Andrilli. All Rights
Reserved. Article used with express permission
of copyright holders.
No comments:
Post a Comment