immigration

Supreme Court Just Reminded Us that Foreigners Have NO Constitutional Right to Enter the U.S.A.

Adding to the left’s heartburn over its decision to uphold President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) also reminded America that foreign nationals have absolutely no right under the U.S. Constitution to enter the U.S. — legally OR illegally.

In its  5-4 decision (Trump v. Hawaii) written by Chief Justice Roberts, the court noted that whether you like the travel ban or not, it is solidly within the president’s powers as president to decree that one group or another can be blocked from entering the country.

First of all, let’s get one thing straight: The ban on immigrants from seven terror-torn nations is not in anyway at all a “Muslim ban.” Liberals have made this their chant, that the president has illicitly created a ban on a religion. But the accusation is false.

We know it is false because nowhere in the various proclamations and orders does it state that religion is a criteria for the temporary halt to immigration. Not only that, but there is no ban at all from dozens of other majority Muslim nations.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Science is Settled

As Dan McLaughlin pointed out today, liberals desperately tried to say the president was violating the would-be immigrants’ mythical First Amendment rights:

So, that left the question of whether this power was limited by the Establishment Clause. But as Hawaii’s lawyers conceded, the travel ban order draws no religious distinctions (as revised to respond to previous legal challenges, it even removed the special consideration the first order had given to Syrian Christians facing genocide), covering only a handful of majority-Muslim countries (drawn originally from an Obama Administration list of countries not deserving of favorable visa procedures under the “Visa Waiver” program) and including non-Muslim countries like North Korea and Venezuela.

If Trump was specifically seeking to keep Muslims out of the country, halting travel from a mere seven nations (some of which aren’t even Muslim) is a poor way to do it.

So, if you hear someone call Trump’s order a Muslim ban,” call them a liar and demand that they prove their accusation. Then laugh in their face when they can’t do it… because all they have is fake news and wild-eyed rhetoric, not facts for their allegation.

Now, we must note that the court has already said in the past that foreigners have no constitutional right to enter the U.S.A. and this week’s SCOTUS ruling essentially reminds us of this fact.

In the 1972 decision for Kleindienst v. Mandel, the court noted the following (via National Review):

For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” [and which] may implicate “relations with foreign powers”…

[A]lthough foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen. In Kleindienst v. Mandel, …we limited our review to whether the Executive gave a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action…Given the authority of the political branches over admission, we held that “when the Executive exercises this [delegated] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification” against the asserted constitutional interests of U. S.
citizens.

Now, all that being said, the SCOTUS also reminded the nation that Trump’s power to ban any class of immigrants is on 100 percent solid grounds.

The law that gives Trump the right to put bans on groups of foreigners is seen in 8 U. S. C. §1182(f), which states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

As I noted in yesterday’s piece, this power has been exercised by numerous presidents already.

In 1882, for instance (and remember, this was before the statue was built), President Chester Alan Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act. This legislation banned “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining” and it kept them from entering the U.S. for 10 years. The law even put restrictions on Chinese people who were already here, forcing them to get work permits and other requirements. It was extended another ten years in 1892, but the bias really didn’t fade until the U.S. entered WWII and the Chinese became our allies in the fight against the Japanese.

Just ahead of our entry into WWII, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration notoriously put a ban on Jews entering the U.S. from Europe. One excuse was that FDR feared Nazi spies from entering with immigrant Jews, but really FDR was just trying not to anger Hitler before we entered the war. In 1939, the U.S. even turned away the St Louis ocean liner that had onboard nearly a thousand Jews hoping to find refuge from the Nazis. Many later ended up dead in Hitler’s gas chambers after FDR refused them entry.

Our other presidential Roosevelt, Teddy, also put a ban on a group of immigrants. In 1903 TR put the kibosh on people he feared were anarchists. This was during a time when anarchists were bombing targets all across the U.S. and killing Americans.

In two more cases, Congress passed a ban on communists in 1950 and Jimmy Carter banned Iranians during the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1980.

So, it isn’t like Donald Trump dreamed this idea up all alone. It is a power other presidents have exercised.

Indeed, as far as Iowa Rep. Steve King is concerned, the new SCOTUS ruling just laid the foundation for the border wall.

King made his position known on an op-ed at Breitbart News on Tuesday:

What does this mean? It means, as I have argued, that President Trump’s “travel ban” limiting immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Chad, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen is constitutional. It means that President Trump does have the authority, despite the open-borders howls of liberals and illegal alien activists, to secure our citizens against threats posed by foreign nationals from dysfunctional states. It is a good ruling, and one that will help President Trump keep this nation safe, secure, and protected.

But Trump v. Hawaii is a decision with a less obvious meaning too. The Supreme Court has just laid the foundation for the Border Wall that the President and I want to build along the US-Mexico border. Trump v. Hawaii, in fact, provides a roadmap to “Build The Wall!

So, it is settled law. President Trump can deny foreign nationals entry to the country. He should immediately issue a Presidential Proclamation suspending the entry of foreign nationals from Mexico, Caribbean, Central, and South American countries until such time as he finds the detrimental effects of illegal immigration from these regions have been curtailed and our border is secure. These areas are home to the violent and dysfunctional countries that export the vast majority of illegal immigrants to America.

King’s logic is inescapable.

So, what is the left’s response? Naturally, a group of far left-wing, un-American attorneys general have filed yet another nuisance lawsuit.

As ABC reported late on Tuesday afternoon: 17 attorneys general, District of Columbia sue Trump administration over family separations.

“My office has not yet lost a lawsuit to the Trump Administration, and we do not intend to lose this one,” WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson says.

They clearly have no basis for this nonsense. The SCOTUS has already told them. But liberals don’t care about truth or facts.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.