I wish that we had a political/media class that would discuss things honestly. Sadly, we don't.
Let's use Donald Trump's call for a ban on admittance of Moslems to the country as an example. When Trump first announced the proposed ban the other afternoon, he spoke in general terms about refusing admittance to any Moslems into the USA. The way Trump spoke, his proposal would bar Islamic American citizens from re-entering the country after international travel. It would also have barred Moslem American servicemen from coming home after service abroad. Needless to say, that proposal was a total non-starter. The Constitution would ban any law that refused entry to American citizens based upon their religion. I even wrote a post about how that position would be the end of Trump's success as a candidate.
That same day, however, Trump gave his first interview on the subject to Greta on Fox News. She asked him about Moslem American servicemen returning home as well as about American citizens who have gone abroad. Trump responded that any Moslem who is already here legally would be able to return here after a trip abroad, but that the country needed to be especially vigilant. Trump made clear that his proposal only covered Moslems from other countries who wished to enter the USA. I know, I watched the interview.
The explanation of his proposal that Trump gave to Greta removed any constitutional objection to it. Foreign citizens do not have rights under the Constitution. The law is clear that Congress can specify any test it wants for keeping people out of the country. Over the years, we have had quotas based upon national origin, bans on immigration from certain countries, and the like and all of these have passed muster with the courts. To be clear, there is no issue regarding freedom of religion because when it comes to those who seek entry to the country, there is no right to freedom of religion.
Now all this does not make me think that Trump's proposal is a good one. It is silly to ban tourists from Indonesia or immigrants from Bangladesh if they are clearly not part of the radical Islamic terrorist segment of the world's Moslem population. We need to be careful who gets admitted, and we certainly need a more competent group implementing that policy than we have with Obama and the Obamacrats, but we ought not bar all foreign Moslems from entry.
It would be nice if the media would discuss the merits of Trump's actual proposal, but it just won't. I keep hearing and reading reports that talk about how Trump wants to keep US servicemen from returning home if they are Moslems. I keep hearing and reading reports about how Moslem US citizens won't be able to travel abroad. I keep hearing pundits who should know better (and who may actually know better) opining that Trump's proposal is unconstitutional (as if there some right to immigration held by foreigners.)
Shouldn't we get some honest reporting from the media? Are they really that incompetent?
Let's use Donald Trump's call for a ban on admittance of Moslems to the country as an example. When Trump first announced the proposed ban the other afternoon, he spoke in general terms about refusing admittance to any Moslems into the USA. The way Trump spoke, his proposal would bar Islamic American citizens from re-entering the country after international travel. It would also have barred Moslem American servicemen from coming home after service abroad. Needless to say, that proposal was a total non-starter. The Constitution would ban any law that refused entry to American citizens based upon their religion. I even wrote a post about how that position would be the end of Trump's success as a candidate.
That same day, however, Trump gave his first interview on the subject to Greta on Fox News. She asked him about Moslem American servicemen returning home as well as about American citizens who have gone abroad. Trump responded that any Moslem who is already here legally would be able to return here after a trip abroad, but that the country needed to be especially vigilant. Trump made clear that his proposal only covered Moslems from other countries who wished to enter the USA. I know, I watched the interview.
The explanation of his proposal that Trump gave to Greta removed any constitutional objection to it. Foreign citizens do not have rights under the Constitution. The law is clear that Congress can specify any test it wants for keeping people out of the country. Over the years, we have had quotas based upon national origin, bans on immigration from certain countries, and the like and all of these have passed muster with the courts. To be clear, there is no issue regarding freedom of religion because when it comes to those who seek entry to the country, there is no right to freedom of religion.
Now all this does not make me think that Trump's proposal is a good one. It is silly to ban tourists from Indonesia or immigrants from Bangladesh if they are clearly not part of the radical Islamic terrorist segment of the world's Moslem population. We need to be careful who gets admitted, and we certainly need a more competent group implementing that policy than we have with Obama and the Obamacrats, but we ought not bar all foreign Moslems from entry.
It would be nice if the media would discuss the merits of Trump's actual proposal, but it just won't. I keep hearing and reading reports that talk about how Trump wants to keep US servicemen from returning home if they are Moslems. I keep hearing and reading reports about how Moslem US citizens won't be able to travel abroad. I keep hearing pundits who should know better (and who may actually know better) opining that Trump's proposal is unconstitutional (as if there some right to immigration held by foreigners.)
Shouldn't we get some honest reporting from the media? Are they really that incompetent?
No comments:
Post a Comment