GOOD MORNING FOLKS! IT’S A TEA TIME AND WE ARE HERE WITH OUR NEW ENDEAVOR – “READ EDITORIAL WITH D2G”. SO FRESHEN YOUR EYES, PUT YOUR PILLOWS BACK AND TAKE A SIP OF YOUR TEA WHILE ENJOYING THIS SHORT PIECE OF A NOTE.
EPISODE – XVI
TOPIC: Trump’s Muslim entry ban idea ‘ridiculous,’ ‘unconstitutional’
BLOG: THE WASHINGTON POST
WRITER: JERRY MARKON
GENRE: POLITICS
READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
Donald Trump’s proposal to bar all Muslims from entering the United States violates U.S. and international law and would never be allowed by the courts, legal scholars said late Monday.
“Oh, for the love of God,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. “This would not only violate international law, but do so by embracing (HUG) open discrimination against one religion. It would make the United States a virtual pariah(If you describe someone as a pariah, you mean that other people dislike them so much that they refuse to associate with them.) among nations.’’
The GOP presidential candidate on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States, including immigrants, tourists and even Muslims who are U.S. citizens and travel abroad. His plan to bar U.S. citizens drew particular ire(anger, wrath, fury) from legal experts, some of whom fumbled (गड़बड़ कर देना) for words as they tried to explain its illegality, since none had considered the matter before.
“That’s blatantly unconstitutional if it excludes U.S. citizens because they are Muslims. It’s ridiculous,” said Richard Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan. He cited the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and the First Amendment’s doctrine (A doctrine is a set of principles or beliefs, especially religious ones.) of freedom of religion.
Barring Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the country may not violate U.S. law in the same way, the experts said, because the Constitution’s protections generally do not apply to people outside the nation’s borders. But that’s irrelevant, they said, because Trump’s plan would break many principles of international law and agreements the U.S. has signed with other nations.
“We have treaties, all sorts of relationships with other countries,’’ said Palma Yanni, a D.C. immigration lawyer and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I’m sure it would violate innumerable (countless, endless) treaties if we suddenly started banning citizens of NATO countries, of Southeast Asian countries.’’
The closest parallel in American history to what Trump is proposing appears to be the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which “effectively halted Chinese immigration for ten years,’’ according to a Harvard University Library Open Collections Program called Immigration to the United States, 1789-1930.
The first major anti-immigration statute, it was not fully overturned (overrule) until Congress passed a new immigration law in 1965, and it was never ruled on by the Supreme Court.
But the experts said that Trump’s proposal would go much further because it targets religion, not a nationality or region. “A nation could argue that national security provides a rationale (The rationale for a course of action, practice, or belief is the set of reasons on which it is based. (FORMAL)) for barring immigrants from particular countries engaged in civil wars,” Turley said. “But those rationales fall by the wayside (The wayside is the side of the road. ) when you are using an arbitrary (If you describe an action, rule, or decision as arbitrary, you think that it is not based on any principle, plan, or system. ) criteria like religion.”
Beyond the legal problems, Trump’s plan would also likely be doomed (Someone or something that is doomed is certain to fail or be destroyed. – अपराधी) by practical factors, such as the difficulty and intrusiveness (If someone disturbs you when you are in a private place or having a private conversation, you can call this event an intrusion.) of questioning potential immigrants based on factors such as their surname. And religion “is not on any passport that I’ve ever seen,’’ said Yanni, who labeled the plan “impossible.”
*********
Do YOU REALLY LOVE THIS ARTICLE AND WANT THE SAME TO BE READ BY OTHERS? THEN WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? RECOMMEND THIS POST AND SPREAD THE LOVE FOR D2G. ALWAYS FLOURISH THIS LOVE ON US. IT GIVES US STRENGTH TO DO OUR OPTIMUM.
Thanks for Reading!!!
