Philadelphia Inquirer: "Court rulings support Trump's Muslim immigration plan"

[joeydb]

It must have given them a lot of heartburn to write this, but here it is:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/t...ion-plan-.html

Excerpt:
"The hysterical response to Donald Trump’s proposal to restrict Muslim immigration is unwarranted.

Contrary to the claims of Trump’s critics, the power to suspend the admission of “any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States” is expressly reserved by statute to the president whenever the president finds that such admission “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Candidate Trump is telling us that President Obama should use this power, and that a President Trump would."

If you combine that with the acknowledgement that the Constitution applies to citizens and legal residents already within the country, there should be no issue with a stand altering the immigration or visitation processes affecting those yet to be admitted.

We've often been cautioned about the reverse: Your rights as an American citizen are not portable. Go abroad and steal something in Saudi Arabia and you very well might get your hand cut off after participating in their legal process. Remember that kid who got caned in Singapore for littering many years ago, despite international protests?

That door swings both ways. We are subject to the laws of other countries when we travel abroad, as well as their admission criteria and policies, and travelers from other countries are subject to our laws, including our policies as to whether they are admitted in the first place.

[Danzig]

of course the president has the power. no one said they don't. that's how fdr and his admin were able to deny the jewish refugees that got sent back to europe..many of them dying as a result.
but knowing it CAN be done, doesn't mean the criticisms were unwarranted. trump deserves all the criticism he gets.