A Mus­lim ban is not con­sti­tu­tional

The Hamilton Spectator - - OPINION -

This ap­peared in the Hack­en­sack, N.J. Record:

On Thurs­day, a fed­eral ap­peals court in Vir­ginia handed U.S. Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump an­other de­feat in his ef­forts to block im­mi­grants from six na­tions — Iran, Libya, So­ma­lia, Su­dan, Syria and Ye­men — from en­ter­ing the United States. It is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court next. The pres­i­dent would be wiser to rec­og­nize he can­not im­pose a re­li­gious-based ban.

And whether he wants to or not — he can­not take back what he re­peat­edly said on the cam­paign trail.

Trump sur­ro­gates have tried to backpedal much of what can­di­date Trump said as sim­ply rhetoric, com­ments made off the cuff. But can­di­date Trump was res­o­lute about want­ing a com­plete ban on Mus­lims while cam­paign­ing. He has changed his tune now, but judges still can­not un­hear what was said.

It will be hard to dis­pel the be­lief that the cur­rent ban is not re­li­gious based when Trump’s words sup­port the the­ory that a ban af­fect­ing six Mus­lim-ma­jor­ity na­tions is a Mus­lim ban. It is also hard to dis­miss the fact that na­tion­als from these six na­tions are not con­nected to ter­ror­ist at­tacks on U.S. soil.

Trump has a re­spon­si­bil­ity to keep Amer­ica safe. He also has one to keep Amer­ica Amer­i­can.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.