Entertainment: Start with Succubus and play Hollywood

Trump’s”Muslim ban” has caused more and more turmoil in the United States.

And the second small explosive point hidden in this suggestion was also brought out by others.

This time it was really not guided by Trump’s public relations team. They were spontaneously discovered and”exploded” before they had a chance to do it.

People began to notice the”constitutionality” of this policy.

Because this sounds so”unconstitutional”, even people with a superficial understanding of the U.S. Constitution can expect that once Trump is elected and the plan is actually implemented, someone will inevitably challenge it. Not only the public will There has been a lot of discussion about this, and even the legal circles in the United States have joined the debate.

Jan C. Ting, a constitutional scholar at Temple University and former commissioner of the Immigration Bureau of the U.S. Department of Justice, believes that this entry ban on Muslims is not illegal.

Ting believes that the U.S. Constitution gives the president great power on immigration matters. He said:”It is not unconstitutional for the President of the United States to issue any form of ‘entry ban order.’ The President of the United States can ban undesirable foreigners from entering for any reason.”

At the same time, , Ting also mentioned several previous cases of the U.S. Supreme Court, and also highlighted the Chinese Exclusion Act of that year, to prove that Trump’s policies are legal and legal.

After seeing the news, Martin couldn’t help but call Ivanka.

“Is this person really not arranged by you? He simply copied the correct remarks that we had discussed in the first place.’”

“Absolutely not. We are also wondering here. It is estimated that this person really supports the policy of ‘Muslim ban’. This is his spontaneous behavior.”

“Haha, that’s a coincidence, it saves you a lot of trouble.”

“Hee hee, indeed. Professor Ting

’s views have won the support of many scholars.

For example, Volokh, chair professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, pointed out in an interview:

“Although the plan proposed by Mr. Trump is something that connotes religious discrimination, based on Congress’s full power on immigration matters, as long as the president proposes it and gets the support of Congress, this plan is definitely constitutional. As Professor Ting said, it is impossible for the Supreme Court to oppose itself.”

Of course, if there is support, there must be opposition.

Legomsky, the former chief legal counsel of the Immigration Service, pointed out: Congress’s power to manage immigration matters is not without exceptions. The Supreme Court has partially restricted administrative and administrative matters on issues such as deportation procedures. The power of the legislature.

He also further pointed out that the biggest problem with Trump’s plan is not only whether it is”constitutional”, but whether the president can make such a decision unilaterally. The

“Immigration and Immigration Law” enacted by Congress The Naturalization Act does not give the president such authorization. If Trump insists on going his own way, it will undoubtedly damage the authority of Congress, undermine the system of separation of powers in the American Constitution, and cause a more serious constitutional crisis. Combined with President Okuan Hai’s executive suspension of deportation Legomsky’s concerns about the controversy caused by the order are not unreasonable.

If conservatives oppose what Ou Guanhai has done, then it is naturally impossible to support Trump’s”wild behavior.”

As for Ting’s case of citing the Chinese Exclusion Act Professor Dorf of Cornell University believes that today is different from the past. The bill itself would not be passed by today’s Congress. It is also doubtful whether the jurisprudence based on the bill will be supported by today’s High Court.

Morawetz, a law professor at New York University, said she could not believe that anyone would advocate adding a religious test to entry into the United States. She said:”It is worth noting that the various immigration bans supported by the High Court in the past were based on It is based on nationality or race, while Trump’s ban targets religious beliefs. I can’t remember any previous cases in the Supreme Court that refused entry on religious grounds.

Cornell University law professor Yale-Loehr believes that if this ban is to take effect, it must be authorized by Congress, and any similar bill will hardly be supported by the High Court because such a ban directly conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment. It conflicts with the spirit of the equal protection clause in the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Yanni, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, believes that this ban conflicts with many existing diplomatic agreements in the United States. Because there are many Muslims in NATO countries and Southeast Asian countries, The sudden implementation of this policy will inevitably cause diplomatic conflicts with these countries.

These two regions are areas where the United States’ major allies are located. They have the most complicated and deep diplomatic relations with the United States, and the more bilateral and multilateral agreements there are, the more Muslim bans they have. The more potential problems that may be involved.

It is also difficult to enforce this ban because most of the time immigration officials have very limited time to process each arrival. Most of the time they only rely on the passport to do the most basic processing of entry applicants. Survey.

Professor Yanni believes that no passport in the world has a”religion” column.

And unlike the public’s stereotyped perception, Islamic believers are very diverse in appearance, clothing and lifestyle. , immigration officials have no way to easily judge the religious beliefs of an immigrant from their appearance.

Some scholars have jumped out of the fields of immigration law and international law and tried to cite other provisions of the Constitution to argue whether the ban is unconstitutional.

Professor Primus of the University of Michigan’s Constitutional Law said It was pointed out that the ban did not meet the requirement of”legitimate government legislative purpose.”

According to previous High Court judgments, any government laws, regulations, plans, and plans must be based on constitutional, legal and legitimate legislative purposes, and the legislation It must be applied with great precision to the group of people it is intended to target.

But Trump’s ban seeks to”ban any person from a religious group with a population of more than one billion and a very diverse ethnic, international and political background” from entering the United States. Not only is the purpose inappropriate, but the target group is very inaccurate.

He also further pointed out that although Trump’s future government lawyers will defend the ban on the grounds of national security, this does not mean that the court will accept their argument, because A party challenging the ban could easily argue that the real motivation for the ban was based on”hostility””、””Theology” or both, and these legislative motives are completely unconstitutional.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor, criticized Trump’s ban from the perspective of rights protection.

In his view, although most of the rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are not It is not automatically granted to foreigners, but based on his understanding of the Constitution, some of the most important constitutional protections, such as religious freedom, due process and other rights, are not restricted by nationality and geography.

He analyzed the wording of the constitutional provisions, Pointing out that the Fifth Amendment requires the U.S. government to protect”any person” with due process, while the First Amendment stipulates that”Congress shall make no law respecting…an establishment of a state religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” Neither of the two places any restrictions on nationality. and geographical restrictions.

His views were supported by Friedman, another professor at the University of Michigan, who believed that Trump’s ban was ridiculous.

Faced with the collective offensive of the legal community, conservative media such as Fox News, Limbaugh Radio, and Breitbart Online media repeatedly quoted Carter’s 1980 entry ban on Iranian citizens, arguing that it was very similar to Trump’s ban.

However, the opposition refuted the conservative media’s use of the quote out of context to mislead the public, because Carter’s ban was targeted at citizens of this country, and It is not targeted at adherents of a religion.

According to Carter’s ban, only when immigrants seek entry on the grounds of fleeing religious persecution can immigration officials investigate the applicant’s religious beliefs to determine whether they meet the exceptions in the ban.

( Brothers, please take care of me. Please give me some comments, flowers, collections, and rewards. Thank you.）.