On February 12, 2016 USJF (United States Justice Foundation) published its Legal Policy Paper “A Legal Analysis of New Proposals to Limit Immigration from Muslim Countries into the United States.”
As most of you know, Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.” Sharia authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.” – Donald J. Trump
The Trump proposal was met with an outcry among liberal law professors and politicians — most of who seemed to imply that the Trump proposal was absurd, unprecedented, illegal, and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, there was little thoughtful legal analysis offered at the time by its critics. This paper analyzes the legality of the Trump proposal under the U.S. Constitution and existing U.S. law.
Mr. William J. Olson, P.C., contributor for the U.S. Justice Foundation have prepared the mentioned above Legal Policy Paper, a 12-page legal analysis written in a specific lawyer’s language, and still having very powerful “normal English” conclusion.
Here it is: “The Trump Proposal differs from earlier restrictions only in that it would exclude aliens from entry into the United States based exclusively upon their religion, as opposed to their religious beliefs or other factors. Nevertheless, the Trump Proposal appears to be authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Moreover, there are no Supreme Court decisions that would support an excluded alien’s challenge to such action on constitutional grounds. This is not to say that the Trump Proposal would be immune from constitutional attack, of course. Indeed, one would expect such challenges would be forthcoming, including lawsuits filed by American citizens claiming that the exclusion of Muslims violated their own First Amendment religious rights. However, the Trump Proposal is significantly, if not substantially, supported by federal statutory authority, a long line of court decisions, and is similar to a number of earlier directives issued by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.”
Looks like Donald Trump’s legal team did their homework, leaving no place for doubts in the proposal when it comes to the analysis by the pro. Probably, Trump’s approach for the team-work in the “locked-until-done-room” is very efficient not only in the healthcare resolutions but also on the legal front.
This paper was prepared by William J. Olson, P.C. (www.lawandfreedom.com) for the United States Justice Foundation.
From USJF website: The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a nonprofit public interest, legal action organization dedicated to instruct, inform and educate the public on, and to litigate, significant legal issues confronting America. USJF was founded in 1979 by attorneys seeking to advance the conservative viewpoint in the judicial arena. Since 1980, USJF has submitted testimony to the U.S. Senate on every Supreme Court appointee and sponsored conferences on a variety of important legal issues. USJF published studies and reports on topical issues and distributes them free of charge to opinion leaders, students and the general public. USJF has contributed directly and indirectly to legal defense efforts in many celebrated cases involving fundamental conservative principles. USJF shall not, directly or indirectly, intervene, or participate, in a political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.Tags: Donald Trump Muslims