Sometimes Trump gets it right, but…

Using belief — like Islam — as a bar to immigration to the US?

Well, not right but constitutional.

Peter Spiro is a constitutional — and immigration — law professor whose op-ed piece in the New York Times today is bound to surprise not a few Americans. He writes that this is an exam question he uses in immigration law classes and has done frequently since the towers fell.

The answer is not what you might think — but it also raises the issue of what, exactly, we mean when we say something is “constitutional” in the first place.

In the ordinary, non-immigration world of constitutional law, the Trump scheme would be blatantly unconstitutional, a clear violation of both equal protection and religious freedom (he had originally called for barring American Muslims living abroad from re-entering the country as well; he has since dropped that clearly unconstitutional notion). But under a line of rulings from the Supreme Court dating back more than a century, that’s irrelevant. As the court observed in its 1977 decision in Fiallo v. Bell, “In the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”…NYT

Well, if you put it that way…

It’s called “plenary power” and it “dates back to the 1889 decision in the Chinese Exclusion case, in which the court upheld the exclusion of Chinese laborers based on their nationality.” …NYT

The bad old days don’t go away all that fast in our real America — as distinct from that nice imaginary America so many like to believe in. The torch held by the Statue of Liberty, her arm raised in a way that makes the torch look like some skull-cracking weapon? It’s actually a symbol of the blistering burns dealt out by bullies in our immigration system.

As for President Trump…

…Contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” on his finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” President Obama has used this to the better end of excluding serious human rights violators. ...NYT

Of course, it can be changed. Spiro suggests that piece of “constitutional” lousy treatment of people seeking a new life in America is already on the skids. It’s just not how we see ourselves and won’t long survive the “court of public opinion.”

That, of course, drives the far right crazy. No matter what they like to believe, the Constitution gets updated all the time.

___

The Post finds that Republican leaders are (what else is new?) trying to have it both ways when it comes to simple, moral issues.

“Freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional principle. It’s a founding principle of this country,” Ryan told reporters. “This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

McConnell called proposals to bar visitors on the basis of their religion “completely inconsistent” with American values.

But neither Republican said he would reject Trump if he won the nomination...WaPo

Etc., etc. You just can’t catch a Republican these days in a strong moral stance. They’d roast babies for a picnic lunch on the Mall if they thought they could pick up a few extra votes.

___

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday likened Republican presidential front-runner to past divisive political figures, predicting his inflammatory rhetoric will fall flat.
“That kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America,” Sanders said “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon,” according to BuzzFeed News. ...TheHill

Jeez — I hope he’s right.

Cross-posted from Prairie Weather

graphic via shutterstock.com