Constitutional Prof: ‘Clear Statutory Authority’ for Donald Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban

Jan Ting
Jan Ting/Twitter

Jan Ting, professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, joined Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM with guest host Matthew Boyle and discussed how the Constitution and Supreme Court cases support Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States to protect Americans from possible terrorists coming into the country.

“I think the reaction to candidate Trump’s proposal has really been what I call hysterical. I think the failed establishment is panicked that Trump is making a case for himself,” Ting told Boyle. “There’s clear statutory authority in the laws [outlined by] Congress … delegating to the president” the power to impose an immigration ban “whenever the president finds that such admission would be detrimental to the United States.”

“Prior Supreme Court opinions clearly suggest that courts would reject” challenges to this type of move on immigration by a president, Ting stated, adding that immigration bans are up to Congress and the president. “The role of the courts is … minimal.”

Ting referenced that President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the United States “just on the basis of their nationality,” and “there wasn’t even a challenge to that.”

“Any policy toward aliens is tied up with foreign relations, the war power” Ting told Boyle. “This is going to be constitutional.”

“What we’re talking about is a policy dispute between political candidates. Nothing to get worked up into a hysteria over,” Ting explained.

“I’m a registered Republican, but I think of myself as an independent,” Ting said, adding,“I pick and choose who I’m going to support in each election.” He said sometimes he supports Republicans, and sometimes, Democrats.

“The elites have exaggerated what happened to Japanese Americans,” Ting explained, referencing the attacks in the mainstream media comparing Trump’s proposal to what happened following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Ting said that move was a “different can of worms.”

“There’s a clear line of cases that says the United States government can exclude those people for any reason or for no reason at all,” he stated.

Boyle asked Ting about fellow GOP candidate Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) referencing the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, saying, “This is the first time in the modern history of this county that an enemy has tried to manipulate our legal immigration sytem … to insert radicals … into the country.”

Boyle pointed out that the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 came to the United States legally with foreign visas.

“Senator Rubio is someone who I personally, under no circumstances, will support for President of the United States,” Ting exclaimed. “It’s better for the bad policy to be made by Democrats.” He added, “If bad policy is made by Republicans … we’re doomed.”

“Rubio is one of those people. He was a sponsor of the big amnesty. … He was the only one of the few Republican sponsors of it,” Ting said, referencing Rubio’s failed Gang of Eight immigration bill in 2013.

“I can’t support Republicans like that. Those are Republicans that I don’t support, and I’d rather see a Democrat elected than a bad Republican,” stressed Ting.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.