Law Supports Anti-Terror Ban – With One Refinement  Robert Charles Posted: Jan 31, 2017

Mainstream media needs to spin down, stop the emotional hokum.  President Trump’s anti-terrorist ban is entirely legal, even if it could use modest revisions to limit and clarify intent.  Strong security arguments support a temporary ban on unrestricted travel to the United States from the seven countries identified as sources of terrorism.  This should not be controversial, and has precedent.  Two caveats:  This is not a religious test, which would never work and contravenes constitutional norms; and yes, select waivers should issue to ease implementation.

Now, deep breath.  Similar national, condition-specific travel restrictions are well established.  Typically, they involve a specific condition – political, health or security – and country subject to the restriction.  Typically, they are temporary – as this one is.  President Obama placed harsh, indefinite restrictions on entry into the US from Liberia, Sierra Leonne and Guinea during an Ebola outbreak. Those actions were just and reasonable, to protect Americans.   
Notably, no one claimed that ban was discriminatory or unconstitutional, anti-Muslim, anti-African, anti-underdeveloped or racist, despite the cultural homogeneity of those countries.  Guinea is 85 percent Muslim, Sierra Leonne 78 percent Muslim, and Liberia, while majority Christian also largely Muslim.  The ban fell within the President’s Article 2 powers. 

READ ON