To believe his critics, Donald Trump has ripped up the U.S. Constitution and sprinkled its shreds on the smoldering embers of what was once the Statue of Liberty.
He did this, of course, by proposing a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States, which might be the most roundly and fiercely denounced idea in America since the British Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts (in 1774).
There is no doubt about it: Donald Trump's proposal is invidious; not all Muslims are a security risk. It is unworkable; among other things, airlines would have to screen travelers from Europe for their religion. It is imprudent; we don't want to send a message of generalized hostility to Muslims.
But it's not unconstitutional. Trump's detractors, and even some of his fellow Republicans, can't help making this charge, even though it betrays a misunderstanding, not just of the Constitution but of the very nature of a sovereign nation.
"We do not discriminate on people based on religion," Ben Carson said in response to Trump's proposal, "that's constitutional, that's in the First Amendment." Of course, he's right. Except the First Amendment isn't a free-floating grant of rights to all of mankind.
We are a sovereign country with the right to exclude whomever we want from coming here. In keeping with this basic attribute of nationhood, a long line of Supreme Court cases have upheld the "plenary power" of the political branches to set immigration policy in any way they please.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
