Blog
Trump’s Muslim Immigrant Ban May Be Constitutional
US Immigration Bonds was astounded when Donald Trump made the declaration that every Muslim American and Muslim immigrant should be deported and barred from entering or traveling to the United States. Many people were rightfully outraged and horrified by Trump’s acclamations, claiming that they go against the constitution, but are they really unconstitutional? Experts say the Muslim immigration ban may not necessarily be unconstitutional.
The plenary power doctrine basically states that when it comes to the admission of aliens into the United States, we cannot discriminate based on race, national origin, or speech. However, we may discriminate if the said people have committed acts against the United States. So, from a constitutional perspective, Muslims may be discriminated against in terms of immigrant discrimination and refuge.
Since the cases that have been covered by this doctrine are old, it is not clear what the Supreme Court would authorize today. Trump’s idea would likely require Congress’ approval, but it is unclear if courts would strike down a ban on Muslim immigrants.
It is important for people to recall how the government treated other groups in recent history, such as the ban of HIV-positive immigrating individuals which was passed in Congress in the late 1980’s under the plenary power doctrine, and remained in effect until 2010.
It does not necessarily go against the constitution to enforce such a ban but it is conceivable that Congress would allow a lower court ruling against the ban to stand. Our immigration bail bondsmen in California know that it is possible for Congress to pass a law to do so, especially if there is another terrorist attack orchestrated by Muslims, however it is not an open and shut case.