During his speech he chastised Donald Trump by holding up a copy of the US Constitution and speaking words equating to the Constitution forbids not letting Muslims in the country.
Subsequently, information has come forward on Khan of an unflattering nature. You can look all that up - or, you can skim my other piece on Khan. Things like Khan, even though he is a US citizen, being strongly in favor of Sharia Law taking precedence over the US Constitution, being associated with the funding & support to terrorist groups, having questionable Saudi Arabia connections, and the like. And, his wife stood there as any dutiful, Sharia-compliant wife would, and said nothing. All of this information is available to all who care to look.
With his anti-American leanings one has but to wonder how he became a US citizen. OH WAIT! I have a suspicion; he and his wife were only following the time-honored Muslim practice of Taqiyya.
BUT, do any of those things make him wrong in his statement?
My personal opinion is that in the order of things important to the human race, they both fall somewhere beneath lumps of swine manure. But, hey! That's only me - perhaps.
Actually, it should be noted that someone's allegiances, even if that person is an honest-to-goodness terrorist, do not indicate that such a person is not offering the truth. One may not like the person, but that doesn't mean the person is wrong or is lying.
Again, was he wrong? Well, let's see . . .
His statements about our Constitution did not seem to ring true to me. It came across more of a political con than someone serious about what the Constitution actually said. So, I started looking stuff up. In the middle of my searching an article appeared that made my research not as arduous. Some of the answers I sought were mirrored in the article with what I had already found and some were new to my research. I, then, vetted all that this article offered - all proved true. The article is listed at the bottom of this piece, labeled "Source".
So, here is the straight "poop" on the Constitution & other laws relative to immigration - and, of course, Trump's pronouncements.
Khan addressed the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, specifically "equal protection under the law". And, indeed the 14th Amendment does offer that - ONLY for people under the jurisdiction of the United States. Section 1 of this Amendment, the applicable part, offers that: "No State" shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That is the totality of the "Equal Protection Clause" in our Constitution.
So, Khans was wrong on his assertion. Now, it matters not whether his statement was his own or whether the DNC told him what to say. His statement was still wrong. And, sadly, most people listening to him would just accept his statement as true without any verification.
Other parts of the Constitution reference aliens and immigrants, i.e., people NOT under the jurisdiction of the US. These last 2 sets of people are the exact ones Trump's intentions address - NOT people who are already in the US.
So, let's look at some other relevant parts of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8 states the power of the federal government "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...":
- Regarding the scope of this power, as the Supreme Court held in its 1982 case United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, “The power to regulate immigration—an attribute of sovereignty essential to the preservation of any nation—has been entrusted by the Constitution to the political branches of the Federal Government.” The Court then quoted a 1976 case, which acknowledged, “The Court without exception has sustained Congress’ plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens.”
Further, the MacCarran Walter Act of 1952 specifically gives the president the power to exclude any group of immigrants he or she chooses based on a variety of concerns; examples are, but not limited to: unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical, etc. Has this law ever been used? Yes. Jimmy Carter (Democrat) used it to exclude Iranians and even to round up Iranians here and deport them.
Now, Trump could only do what he proposes with the consent of Congress. EXCEPT, ...
1. Even Obama had something to say in favor of Trump's intent, a la, no entry without proper vetting.
"I therefore hereby proclaim that:
Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:
(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so. "
Paragraph (f) has some fairly specific words relative to Trump's desire to limit an influx of Muslims from certain countries, etc.:
Another Constitutional argument progressives use against Trump's intended actions, is Article VI, Clause 3. The applicable portion of this Article & Clause states: "...; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
As you can see, this ONLY applies in the case of an official US office or public trust. No immigrant, actual or potential, would fall under this part of the Constitution.
As a note, the above applies to Trump's stated intentions to both Muslim refugees and to those who enter our country illegally. One may not like what Trump offers; but, as president he is well within the authority of the Constitution and the laws of our land to effect what he states.
Just as a curiosity to many, there is nothing in our Constitution or any law that permits a president from taking any action in direct opposition to the Constitution or any law by proclamation, executive order, or by just ignoring a law or the Constitution. Think about THAT.
There is much more on this subject to be found in the linked article below. But, for now, the above should be sufficient to establish the following:
To repeat, Khan was wrong, either by his own, personal ignorance or because the DNC set him up to spout a sound bite that most would not research for accuracy and, thus, con the American people. And, the fact that most people don't have the time nor the inclination to do proper research is a pity. It is so easy these days to be led astray by the unscrupulous.
Source: Click Here for a partial source of the above Constitutional & Law information.