Fact-Checking a Reader

Courtesy Dan Piraro, bizarro.com

Courtesy Dan Piraro, bizarro.com

(Note: This commentary was written and posted in January, last year — 2016. It was based on then-candidate Trump’s statement calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” as pointed out in the 12th paragraph, below.)

In a recent commentary (Notables and Quotables), a regular reader to this site responded to comments I made about GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump:

“I would point out historically, that U.S. Code Law 1182, passed in 1952 by a Democratic House and Senate said the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States…

“This was used by President Jimmy Carter to ban Iranians from coming here and was used to deport several thousand Iranian students (after the Hostage taking). … When people call Trump a nut-case for saying ‘no more Muslims until we figure this out’ he stands on law.”

I was curious about both the law and Carter’s actions, so I did some research. I quickly discovered that there are plenty of conservative-leaning websites that tout the legality of Trump’s proposed ban. However, I wanted to find objective information minus political spin.

The law began as The McCarran-Walter Act, sponsored by House Representatives Francis E. Walter (D-PA), and Pat McCarran (D-NV). The Act was designed to revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality. It passed a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. However, President Truman vetoed the bill on the grounds that it was “un-American” and discriminatory. Both the House and Senate overrode Truman’s veto, and the Bill formally became law on June 27, 1952.

Under the terms of the law, a U.S. President does have the power to ban individuals from entering the country. In fact, long before the 1952 law, “in 1932 President Herbert Hoover*and the State Department essentially shut down immigration during the Great Depression. As a result, immigration went from 236,000 in 1929 to 23,000 in 1933,” according to Wikipedia.

A closer look at the law reveals the following specifics.

Briefly, 8 U.S. Code Law 1182 – “Inadmissible aliens: defines inadmissible aliens with health-related communicable diseases, conviction of certain crimes, multiple criminal convictions, controlled substance traffickers, prostitution and commercialized vice, certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity who have asserted immunity from prosecution, foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, significant traffickers in persons, and money laundering if the Attorney General has reason to believe that the alien is engaged in terrorist activities, immigrant membership in totalitarian party [at the time, this was listed as Communist], participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing, association with terrorist organizations, and recruitment or use of child soldiers, to name but a few of the details.”

While it was passed in 1952 and parts of the original Act remain, it has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965. It was this modified act that President Carter referred to in 1980.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) lists Carter’s “Executive Order 12172 — Delegation of authority with respect to entry of certain aliens into the United States.”

According to the conservative website Newsmax (Dec. 9, 2015), “In a 1980 speech, Carter stated, ‘The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.’

On the surface, this sounds like an apples-to-apples comparison between Trump’s statement – a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” – and Carter’s executive order. However, Snopes (Dec. 9, 2015), a website dedicated to checking the veracity of rumors and stories, took a closer look.

“Stripped of context (and if readers squinted very hard), Carter’s remarks bore a passing resemblance to Trump’s proposal. However, the announcement’s title (‘Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions’) suggested that the passage was part of a larger foreign policy strategy undertaken in response to a specific crisis, which was clear to those who read [Carter’s] speech in full:

“ ‘Ever since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women — their safety, their health, and their future — have been our central concern. We’ve made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.’

“Carter addressed the then-ongoing Iranian hostage crisis,” Snopes writes, “(which lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981) in the opening portion of his remarks:

“ ‘The events of the last few days,’ Carter said, ‘have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.’

“In a broader context of an ongoing, direct conflict between Iran and the United States,” Snopes says, “Carter announced immediate sanctions on Iran, which included a cessation of diplomatic relations, a prohibition on trade, and assessment of previously-frozen Iranian Government assets. Along with several other sanctions, Carter ordered the cancellation of Iranian-U.S. visas and a moratorium on new visas, with exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations. After listing the intended sanctions, Carter explained the United States’ impetus for them:

“ ‘In order to minimize injury to the hostages,’ Carter announced, ‘the United States has acted at all times with exceptional patience and restraint in this crisis. We have supported Secretary-General Waldheim’s activities under the U.N. Security Council mandate to work for a peaceful solution. We will continue to consult with our allies and other friendly governments on the steps we are now taking and on additional measures which may be required.

“ ‘I am committed to resolving this crisis. I am committed to the safe return of the American hostages and to the preservation of our national honor. The hostages and their families, indeed all of us in America, have lived with the reality and the anguish of their captivity for five months. The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.’

“Carter,” Snopes continues, “explicitly outlined the reasons behind the issuance of sanctions (including visa cancellation for Iranian nationals) and underscored his intent to pressure Iran’s regime. By contrast, Trump’s proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy, and one directed at all adherents of a particular religion (regardless of their nationalities) rather than citizens of a particular country. Moreover, Carter’s sanctions occurred during a lengthy period of escalating conflict between Iran and the United States (while U.S. hostages remained in foreign captivity), but Trump’s proposal came in response to a mass shooting perpetrated by an American citizen and his immigrant wife.

“Finally, Carter’s sanctions were applied to Iranian nationals as part of a clear objective to secure the release of the U.S. hostages without military intervention, whereas Trump’s suggestion applied to a far broader cross-section of visa applicants, which he described as a measure to prevent terrorist attacks.”

On the matter of whether Trump’s ban is constitutional, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said, “I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution. Both the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

“Tribe, a constitutional law expert,” NBC News reports, “said Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. ‘It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.’ ”

“Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be ‘impossible to administer’ and ‘stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists.’ ”

When asked how his plan would work in practice, Trump responded “They [border agents] would ask, ‘Are you Muslim?’ ”

In typical Trump fashion, when asked days later if would like to modify his stance, Trump cited Franklin Roosevelt’s forced internment of Japanese-Americans at the beginning of World War II as justification – a move that most scholars have long viewed as a black mark on the Roosevelt legacy.

Would Donald Trump’s plan calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. hold up based on 8 U.S. Code Law 1182? It’s highly doubtful. While President Carter targeted individuals by nationality, Trump’s plan targets individuals by ideology.

Read my rebuttal to comments on this post.

Read the latest commentary.

* Correction: This passage originally said that President Roosevelt was in part responsible for the shut down of immigration. Actually, it was President Herbert Hoover.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someoneShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

129 comments… add one

  • Bruce A. Frank February 28, 2016, 4:55 pm

    If I were attempting to debunk claims of exaggeration and misinformation, I would avoid quoting Snopes as a reliable source. You have the ability to do better research than they, unless you subscribe to their past demonstrated bias of cherry-picking sources to support their preconceived results.

    • Jim Lichtman February 28, 2016, 8:02 pm

      While I always appreciate comments from readers, this reader is making their own incorrect assumptions concerning the conclusions made by Snopes regarding President Jimmy Carter’s speech. So, let me make it easier and clearer.

      1) Here is the complete text of President Carter’s speech taken from The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara’s website. If you read the entire speech, the conclusions made by Snopes appear accurate. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233

      2) Further, Snopes said that the Iranian Hostage Crisis “lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981.” According to the University of Maryland Baltimore County, “The Iran Hostage Crisis lasted from 1979-1981…for 444 days.”
      http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/lessondisplay.php?lesson=70

      If Snopes is guilty of “cherry-picking” information in this particular story to fit their own conclusions, I don’t see it, and invite readers to review Carter’s complete speech and then tell me where Snopes has manipulated or misrepresented Carter’s words.

      • Michael May 26, 2016, 8:55 am

        News flash for you, Jim. Carter’s speech, that you keep referring to, does not encompass the law that is in question, nor is it the law. The speech only builds from it.

        If a person reads the LAW without regard to the speech you keep suggesting encompasses this law and is the only basis for its interpretation, the intent becomes clear. All you are doing in convoluting the law which had empowered Carter in his speech and policy with all your references to his speech and other biased commentators as if they have some special understanding of the clear language of the Law in question.

        Why don’t you invite people to read the constitutional law instead of this “speech”? Me thinks you are reaching for straws.

        • Jim Lichtman May 26, 2016, 10:24 am

          Thanks for your comments, Michael.

          In response to your question: “Why don’t you invite people to read the constitutional law instead of this ‘speech’?”

          I do!

          I offer readers a direct link to the law’s origin (The McCarran-Walter Act), and the law itself (8 U.S. Code Law 1182).

          In my comments (directly above yours,) I was responding to a reader’s comments concerning the veracity of the website, Snopes.

          Regarding the central issue of my commentary, namely, Donald Trump’s statement calling for a temporary ban on all Muslims, MSNBC reported (Dec.7, 2015):

          “Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf said that while U.S. policy ‘routinely applies different immigration rules for nationals of different countries,’ Trump’s proposal to only exclude ‘foreign nationals who are Muslim’ would likely be ‘unconstitutional.’

          “Dorf, an expert in constitutional law, noted that three years ago, the House ‘passed a resolution expressing regret for the Chinese Exclusion laws, which were based on ethnic prejudice,’ and he told MSNBC ‘Immigration policy based on religious prejudice would be equally odious.’

          “Assessing Trump’s plan, Stanford Law professor Jenny Martinez said ‘Excluding all people of a particular religion from entering the country on the sole basis of their religion would, in my view, clearly violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.’

          “Martinez, an expert in international law, added that the only legal support for such an approach comes in older, discredited cases. ‘To the extent there are precedents for this kind of blanket discrimination,’ she told MSNBC, ‘they are ones, like the Japanese internment camps upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu, which all reasonable constitutional experts consider tragic mistakes that we should not repeat.’ ”
          http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-anti-muslim-proposal-probably-illegal

          I do, however, appreciate the lively debate on this issue.

          • Monique Manna September 19, 2016, 6:47 pm

            On the matter of whether Trump’s ban is constitutional, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said, “I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution. Both the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

            “Tribe, a constitutional law expert,” NBC News reports, “said Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. ‘It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.’ ” – Although he has backed off on banning Muslims, he was accurate in what he stated. Also Article VI “no Religious Test Clause” does not apply to what Trump proposed. Article VI applies to Federal Workers. http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/135/religious-test

            I am not a law professor, or expert in Constitutional Law, but, I like you, had to research what was presented. Anyone could read what this Professor says and they would believe it. However, research it, and it is an overreach. (My opinion only) Also, the Preamble of our Constitution is very important, as it talks about the Citizens of the United States; “We the People”; “domestic tranquility”; “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are powerful words, ones that need to be respected.

            “Assessing Trump’s plan, Stanford Law professor Jenny Martinez said ‘Excluding all people of a particular religion from entering the country on the sole basis of their religion would, in my view, clearly violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.’ ~ Amendment VIV Section I of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection does not apply to those seeking to enter the United States, it applies to those who already in the United States.

          • Jim Lichtman September 21, 2016, 8:18 am

            Thanks for your comments, Monique.

            You are, of course, technically correct in your precise reading of Article VI.

            However, if you read the Tribe quote carefully, he said, “Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.”

            Using the terms “general prohibition” and “the spirit of,” Tribe is not overreaching, but rather he is interpreting two aspects of the Constitution, strongly suggesting that if Trump became president and ordered such a ban, it would quickly be challenged in federal court.

            While you may find legal experts who side with Trump on this issue, the bottom line is Congress would have the ultimate say over Trump’s ban, and at this point in time, most Republicans in Congress do not agree with such a ban.

          • Robert Munion January 24, 2017, 9:08 am

            My personal take is that Trump does have the legal right to prevent the immigration of all radical Islamist. Those whose intent is to overthrow our government and constitution. All immigrants should be vetted, irregardless of country or religion. All immigration must be legal! If the law is not clear and absolute in this regard, it is time to rewrite our immigration laws. We must protect our constitution, not allow persons whose beliefs dictate a disobedience of the existing Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Do not change to accommodate those who only want their idealology imposed upon all Americans! And that is in in line with our Constitution. We accept many religions in this wonderful country, including muslims. But as one muslim friend tells me, they do not want radicals here. They love the USA and do not wish to have it destroyed by a group that really does not even adhere to the rules of Islam. So if the immigration of those who wishing to come to our land is delayed while they are being vetted, so be it!

          • Donald White January 30, 2017, 4:59 am

            Trump supporters aren’t interested in anything beyond deaf, dumb, & blind allegiance to Trump’s nationalistic jingoistic xenophobic racist poppycock. Trying to educate one is a complete waste of breath.
            – Don 🇺🇸

          • Dave January 31, 2017, 2:06 am

            To the comment regarding “ideology.” I’d like your feedback on this very specific “Muslim ideology.” Because the ideology of the Muslim religion is very specific as to how it deals with anyone who is not of the same beliefs, I’d like to present a new question.

            If we say….
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            Then that means this amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. These are the inalienable rights of the citizens AND, it is the responsibility of the government to protect them. Correct?

            Islam is opposed to all the above. Not only that, no Islamic country tolerates freedom of speech and press. Muslims, even when they are a minority in a non-Muslim majority country, demand to curtail the freedom of speech of others and, they want the death penalty for those who criticize Islam and its inhumane teachings.

            Islam is a belief system that opposes the American Constitution and strives to overthrow it. If a Muslim wishes to be faithful to his or her religion he must not accept the rule of non-believers (Q.9:23). They are ordered to “not obey the disbelievers and strive against them with the utmost strenuousness (Q. 25:52) because Muslims are made an exalted nation that they may rule over others (Q.2:143).

            Muslims are, therefore, required to “fight the unbelievers, and kill them wherever you find them until there is no more fitnah (dissension, resistance, disbelief) and until religion is for Allah” i.e. Islam and “unbelievers desist in their unbelief.” (Q. 2:191-193)

            Therefore, does this not imply that this Executive Order is not only constitutional, but it also becomes the constitutional duty of our gov’t to enforce a true Muslim ban, and eradicate from our country, any who would hold these “ideals” to be true?

            Coming to the United States is not a right of the seven billion inhabitants of this planet. It is a privilege that can be given only by the government of the United State. And the government must exert due diligence to ensure that those who enter the country pose no threat to the people and the Constitution and, those that live here do not interfere with the beliefs of the others as well.

            Because the Muslim “idealogy” does not tolerate our constitution as written, is our gov’t free to address this situation differently than it would with other religions?

            (**Much of this was cited from an ex-Muslim, name-withheld. I, myself, have not sourced the Quran. But with those passages cited, I believe it would be relatively easy to verify.)

          • Ike February 7, 2017, 8:20 am

            Maybe Jim, Just Maybe you and SNOPES need to actually Read the Executive Order.
            Nothing in the EO says anything about it being about MUSLIMS.
            Nothing in the EO states that its ONLY Muslims in those nations.
            Nothing in the Wording of the EO indicates its specifically aimed at any 1 religion.
            These three MAIN points about the EO cause any Challenge on Religious Freedom Grounds to fail miserably!!
            No matter what a person “ASS U MEs” about the order based on any statements made prior to the order being written, the Facts of the matter are that it does NOT Discriminate on a Religious basis.
            Nothing in the order says ONLY Muslims of the nations listed are prohibited, it says ALL Visas.
            But have a good day

        • Mike Nilges January 28, 2017, 10:44 pm

          Your apparent primary point, within your rambling comparison between Carter’s intentions and a Trump’s, is essentially that one mass killing by a couple of refugees is acceptable and by itself does not require immigration action. I’m guessing you, and anyone who drinks the koolaid you serve might think differently had a relative been killed; or better yet, if you had to face the barrels of their guns yourself. Survivors still suffer from nightmares, but hey, it’s just one incident – why all the fuss? Right?

          • Micah February 28, 2017, 8:22 am

            Dear Dave,
            Please don’t cherry picked the so called facts you use from the Quran, whilst omitting the prior verses that pertain to them. Not having read the Quran myself but having done extensive research each on about killing the non believers and all that and oppressing others is based off of them first transgressing you or breaking treaties which is the law of the land in many countries. Treason is execution in most countries is it not. Sharia law only extends to Muslims its a way of life for them not actual law that they are subject to. The law is dependent on where they live. This is what my research has show every passage you wrote omitts another to spread your beliefs using the “facts”. You should also address the possible misinterpretations from the Quran written in Arabic to English which is a common problem in translating things. So to truly understand what the Quran is saying one should be able to read it for themselves in the language it was originally written in so there cannot be anything lost in translation. Such words that are lost in translation are sharia and jihad which mean more or different things altogether. The laws in such oppressive lands were heavily influenced by Europeans and still are and the bigotry excersiced isn’t necessarily linked to Islam itself. I of course haven’t listed the acttual sources from the Quran to support my statements, so obviously this won’t sway those who believe as you say but for the people who truely want to know will research for themselves and find the answers. There are others better versed in the Quran and whom have studied it and could substantiate my claims for me. Thought that would require the people to look at something on there own and actually research it instead of listening to a couple nobodies online. If you would like though I could find such articles supporting what I say and add the links to this comment.

      • Tammy January 30, 2017, 6:54 am

        Snopes is on the down slope for fact checking anything. It is not a Muslin ban…It is a ban on 7 specific countries. There are many more countries with a predominantly Muslin faith that are not included in the ban. My goodness…When will people figure this key point out and be honest about it?

        • Amie January 30, 2017, 9:18 am

          If you look at the top you will find this article was written prior to Trump signing the E.O. so it does not pertain specifically to the E.O. that was signed but to what one might have expected from Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail about banning Muslims. Now that the order has been signed one only some of this is particularly useful. My goodness why can’t people understand that??

        • Jonathan January 30, 2017, 2:26 pm

          The words muslim and islam don’t even appear in the text of the executive order. There is NO BAN on muslims entering the country. That is an outright fabricated LIE by the media. It is a ban on persons (ALL PERSONS) from 7 specific nations. Those nations are deemed by the president (legally I might add) to harbor individuals who are criminals, terrorists, sponsors of terrorism and will require a more rigourous method of vetting. This idea that Trump is a racist has got to stop folks. Read the order before you blindly accept what CNN and MSN BS tell you.

          • André Uttley January 31, 2017, 12:44 pm

            If Trump’s intention is to bar people from countries harbouring terrorists, then Saudi Arabia should be on the list but it isn’t; neither is Pakistan. It may not be coincidental that during his campaign, Trump set up 8 separate companies in the KSA. Just saying.

          • Donna house March 15, 2017, 8:32 pm

            People ‘s law # 414 chapter 2 section 212 you need to read it ! It passed as Law 1953 June 27 and in that Law it reads Islamic Muslim ‘s are Prohibited from US soil ! On the ground ‘s of their Quran ,Islam is not compatible with our Constitution ! And Islamic Muslim ‘s can not asemulate to western culture ,because they live by the false religion of Islam ! It is on the books and should be enforced ! This is a violation to egnore this law !!

        • FRANK February 7, 2017, 9:28 am

          Tammy…Don’t Confuse Them With The Facts! They’ve Gulped The Kool Aid…It’s Taken effect…Liberalism IS a Mental Disorder!

        • Doug March 11, 2017, 12:15 pm

          Micah: A few questions for you. Please tell me why it is that it’s unsafe for Americans to enter “no-go” zones in various Muslim communities here in the U.S.? When I joined the Navy 30+ years ago, it was to protect America, and it citizens in all of America, not just “most” of it, excluding the no-go zones. Are the Muslims in these communities assimilating into our society like our parents/grandparents etc. did, or are they just Muslims who happen to live in America with no intention of becoming Americans? Would the Muslims in these communities, {the no-go zones} be willing to turn in another Muslim for supposed terrorist activities? Would the members of ISIS, many of who claimed refugee status in Europe and likely to do the same thing here, agree with you on your assessment of the Koran? Lastly, when did logic and common sense leave the Democratic party? My guess is it left the party about the same time as I did as it is one of the main reasons I left.

          • Donna house March 15, 2017, 9:55 pm

            No they are not asemulating ! They are talking Town’s and making them like countries and it is Aginst our constitution ! The take over these small town ‘s and forcing Sahara law on the American people ! And if you go in the no go zone they kill you ! BECAUSE they think it’s okay because they don’t have to abide by our law’s ! This is why TRUMP wants to stop the Islamic Muslim. Invasion ! And don’t let anyone tell you different ! They took over Deerborn Michigan where my friend lives and her Three children ! I haven’t heard from her since she sent me a picture the day they were going up her street taking people out of their homes ! I told her to hide ,but I’ve not heard from her ! I can only imagine the worst ! These people only came here to over Thow our country and towns ! Obama and Hillary Clinton and liberal ‘s put this on the American People !

      • Wiing H February 6, 2017, 4:20 pm

        You lost me when you praise “Snopes”. Why don’t you stick with raw information and form your own opinion instead of quoting some 3rd party commentator sites like Snopes. But just for fun to see who’s behind Snopes…

        Kim Larcapria, Snopes’ main “fact checker” who describes herself as “opening left-leaning” and a liberal. She calls tea party members “TEAhadists”. There goes her objectivity down the tube…

        My advice is to be aware of many of these self-proclaimed Fact Checkers. Just the other day, i came across a reference cited by Politico (fact checker) using Washington Post as the source and vice versa. They cite each other as references (LOL! What a joke).

        • Brian DuBridge February 9, 2017, 3:36 am

          Pay attention, people! The article was written in January 2016, and referred to Trumps STATEMENT, not the present executive order.

    • Debbie June 14, 2016, 10:41 am

      You are absolutely Correct! Read about the ONE, a “woman” who wrote for “SNOPES” this “Article” & See what’s written at the END OF IT..SHE was found in 2002 to be Wrong, Not sure if they called it intentional LIES, But either way, WRONG< so what happens? Obummer through an E/O of course, & without Congress, Of Course, made HER A WRITER FOR SNOPES..Hum..Bet Most know Nothing about ANY of this..yet, it's there to read..all about it..I haven't TRUSTED "SNOPES" for some time..More & More I found THEM To be the ONES Who Are..NOT "TELLING OR WRITING About the REAL..TRUTHS. SO, I always fact check, & they are most definitely "TAINTED"..

      • Scott Lucas January 30, 2017, 5:46 pm

        She was found to be Wrong? With a capital W?? Holy shit.

    • Chris January 29, 2017, 7:23 am

      I completely agree. While the author and I likely share few political beliefs, I thought it was well written until I saw Snopes. I laugh at the inclusion.

    • AJV January 29, 2017, 9:28 am

      “However, I wanted to find objective information minus political spin.”You state this but then use Snopes,the most left leaning spincentric reference source available??? SMFH…

    • Timothyf7 January 31, 2017, 9:48 am

      By citing Snopes, you entire article loses credibility. While I would concede that Snopes does a good job of investigating HIV laden needles stuck in gas pump handles, their Political leanings have several times clouded their truthfulness pertaining to Political questions. They do not offer a place to reply nor give opposing information. Thus, your research is no better using Snopes than it would be from a misstated Wikipedia entry.

    • Jay Ingersoll February 8, 2017, 8:08 pm

      Show us where in 8 US code 1182 it says “unless it’s a Republican making the call to protect Americans from those countries that financially support terrorism”. Snopes has been shown time and again that they do in fact cherry pick, and on several occasions (but not in so many words) self described themselves as being liberal. This is NOT a Muslim ban. It also bans Christians, and those of no particular faith from said countries. Just because you are a talented writer, the facts don’t change. The sky’s still blue. America would be better served if all travel from ALL such countries were banned, until such time as there is a means to deal with a people whose faith includes doctrine that states it’s permissible to lie, if it meets the will of Allah. What inherently lacks ETHICS, is the left’s attempt to imply there is no need for safety where America is concerned. Look as far as Europe to know that viewpoint is incorrect.

  • Jay May 13, 2016, 9:55 am

    You may or may not have had a good case to present, but I immediately lost interest in reading your case after you posted the insulting title, and your liberal cartoon. Before you act all high and mighty, you may want to learn how to be civil and interact with people. Apparently two skills you never learned, and way too common these days!

    • Donna House March 15, 2017, 8:46 pm

      There is Islamic Muslim ‘s taking over town ‘s and forcing Sahara law on people right here in the United States ! A woman in Oklahoma went to work and Islamic Muslim chopped her head off at work! 9 men in ALABAMA was beheaded by Muslim ‘s that took over a town ! Another one a man and his family were attacked in a mall in Minneapolis Minnesota the man was stabbed and his wife was attacked also ! The whole town of Deerborn Michigan has been taken over by Islamic Muslim and they forcing Sahara law on AMERICAN People ! This is all true facts ! And the media is owned by Muslim ‘s and the refuse to say anything about what is happening right now in AMERICA !!! PEOPLE need to wake up or they will be slave’s or dead that’s the only choice that you have should they domination! That what Obama and Hillary and Sorso and the democrats and liberal ‘s want for all of you !!

  • Lori May 16, 2016, 9:37 am

    Your article, while informative, only sites the one incident of a Muslim and his wife killing innocent people as the reason Trump wants to stop Muslims from entering the U.S. until “we can figure out what is going on.” What about the Boston Marathon attack? What about ISIS’s beheading innocent people? What about the attacks in France and Brussels? The omission of those attacks and other barbaric acts by ISIS renders your case invalid.

    • Jim January 29, 2017, 8:24 am

      The Boston bombers where former citizens of Chechnya a country NOT on Trumps list.

      • Kelly January 29, 2017, 10:53 am

        Jim,
        Redardless of what country they were from, They WERE pledging their allegiance to radical Islamic groups, right?? And I am pretty sure they were Muslim as well. I can’t believe that it’s so hard for SOME Americans to see that this country (and many other countries) has/have accepted people from all different countries, that practice all different types of religions. Other than Ireland, which has had the historical Catholic/Protestant feud that’s been goingoing on forever, the people from all the different religions were living together pretty peacefully. Well, at least they weren’t killing each other over a difference in who GOD is.

        • Donna House March 15, 2017, 8:52 pm

          Excuse me!! But you are wrong about them living in peace together ! Islamic Muslim ‘s do not asemulate or live in peace with anyone ! They force people to be like them or they kill them ,they rape women and children! They make them slaves ! So you tell me when and where this peace is ?

      • Jesse January 30, 2017, 5:08 am

        Didn’t President Obama restrict visa waivers for these countries as well?

    • Micah February 28, 2017, 8:30 am

      Dear Lori,
      The educated reader knows this, the educated reader understands why trumps saying these things. Omitting the obvious reasons for his claims doesn’t however refute the article. Perhaps incidental or purposeful it has its problems. But if you take a look at the acts of terror committed by Muslims or anyone possibly Muslim, displayed by the FBI and homeland security, then you can easily see the Muslim terrorist are grossly overestimated. In the years from 1970 to 2015 the percentile of Muslim acts of terror is around 7 percent. I can’t remember the exact percent but it is less then 10 percent. The large portion of acts of terror on us soil are committed by extreme leftists that are attempting to overthrow the government. If you would like my source I would happily provide it. To show the deeds of vocal minorities of a group and paint that as a whole is inherently wrong. Much like painting all Christians as the kkk or west boro baptist would be wrong. It is a logical fallacy that must be addressed.

      • Donna house March 15, 2017, 9:34 pm

        Excuse me sir ! But you are wrong ! Islamic Muslim ‘s do not asemulate to any countries ways ! They live by the Quran and it is all about slavery of women and children and killing Infidels ,Christians and gay’s and Jew’s ! And any one that doesn’t agree with them ! Already they have killed people here in AMERICA ! One women got her head chopped off at work in Oklahoma City , A man and his wife were attacked at a mall in Minneapolis Minnesota, 9 men were executed by beheading in ALABAMA , 48 people were killed in California at a hospital ! ANOTHER town was taken over by Islamic Muslim ‘s in Michigan and people got killed ! Just because you say nothing is happening it really is ! They are taking over our country town by town ! And democrats and liberal ‘s know this is happening ! And before long no one will have freedom in the United States of America ! So don’t you dare tell me their is no attacks in the united State’s ! I know ! My friend in Deerborn Michigan is missing her and her children ! Where the hell is their rights !

  • Michele May 19, 2016, 3:57 pm

    I think Carter used 8 USC 1185 which is listed as ‘Travel control of citizens and aliens’. I very much appreciated your article. This is where I found some reliable info https://www.truthorfiction.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranians-from-entering-the-u-s/

  • Ross July 4, 2016, 10:45 am

    I find Carter’s use of the law WORSE! By your own admission: “While President Carter targeted individuals by nationality, Trump’s plan targets individuals by ideology.”

    So, someone can be banned from the USA for something they have absolutely no control over, but not for an ideology, something they DO have control over? That would be like banning those of African descent, and that is OK, but banning Nazis isnt. “…’splain it to me Lucy…”?

    • Jim Lichtman July 4, 2016, 4:57 pm

      Ross, you might want to re-read the entire commentary and note the comparisons:

      “Carter,” Snopes continues, “explicitly outlined the reasons behind the issuance of sanctions (including visa cancellation for Iranian nationals) and underscored his intent to pressure Iran’s regime. By contrast, Trump’s proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy, and one directed at all adherents of a particular religion (regardless of their nationalities) rather than citizens of a particular country. Moreover, Carter’s sanctions occurred during a lengthy period of escalating conflict between Iran and the United States (while U.S. hostages remained in foreign captivity), but Trump’s proposal came in response to a mass shooting perpetrated by an American citizen and his immigrant wife.

      “Finally, Carter’s sanctions were applied to Iranian nationals as part of a clear objective to secure the release of the U.S. hostages without military intervention, whereas Trump’s suggestion applied to a far broader cross-section of visa applicants, which he described as a measure to prevent terrorist attacks.

      Further, as Constitutional legal scholar Lawrence Tribe notes: “I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution.”

      • Merrill January 30, 2017, 5:14 am

        Perhaps you should re-read the comment. The comment was quite clear. It questions the reasoning behind your claim that Carter’s ban was OK because it was based on nationality whereas Trump’s ban is based on ideology. To ban an entire nationality based on the actions of a few such as Khomeini and the hostage takers is overkill. To unilaterally decide that poor old Amal living hundreds of miles away from Tehran and very non-political should be used to strong-arm a cruel regime that he had no connection with is insane. Yet temporarily banning Muslims from 7 different countries (that were placed on the terror list by Obama) who could very well be terrorists is common sense. Carter’s ban was indefinite (until the hostages were released) whereas Trump’s sets a time frame during which changes in policy can be made if deemed necessary. As an anology consider, you know a family of say 6. You have met the parents and they are mean and cruel and are doing drugs. The youngest child who is being battered comes to you and asks for help and a place to stay. Do you help? Now, you are sitting at home and there is a knock on the door. You answer it and are met by 3 scruffy individuals who are wearing torn clothing and reek of an odor. They ask if they can move in and stay with you. Do you give them your spare room?

        • MisseyT February 4, 2017, 10:59 pm

          lol I love this… ha ha ha… People are so foolish today. But as soon as they are surrounded they will point their fingers at the government and cry, why didn’t they do something. I will be asking, lol were you against what the News called a Ban in 2017? You should have closed you mouth for 120 day…lol people are a hot mess… Wont even let these people do their jobs, like 120 day is for ever… They need to sit they @____ down some where! I’m black too, do yo dam job PDT, I’m willing to wait 120 days… Make everybody follow the dam LAW! They don’t get no dam pass…

  • Andrew S. Edgar July 22, 2016, 8:50 pm

    I fully support Trump’s proposed immigration ban, and I deem it far less of a trespass on our Constitution than President Obama’s government by executive decree–the learned Laurence Tribe notwithstanding.

    • Tegan February 6, 2017, 4:49 pm

      The Immigration Ban in question was handed down as an executive order. How is that not “executive decree”?

  • A. Tai August 26, 2016, 1:36 pm

    Mr. Trump’s statements, re: Muslims and immigration, have always and ever been to temporarily suspend entry of Muslims into the U.S. whose citizenship rests in nations where ISIS-related turmoil is present, not Muslims e.g. from Bolivia, Israel, or Ireland. And a temporary suspension of entry is to allow the government to establish and enforce the adequate vetting of applicants.

    Here’s how Trump’s proposal dovetails with the original intent of the Act of 1952 and [President] Carter’s application of the Act of 1952 in the 1970’s. In 1952, it was applied against an ideology–Communism by Carter, against a foreign hostile nation; by Trump, against a religious ideology that has declared war on the U.S. As for the constitutionality of Trump’s proposal, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments–in this case the 14th–are applicable to U.S. citizens and aliens legally resident in the U.S. The history of SCOTUS’s inconsistent application of the 14th makes a certain banning of Trump’s proposal hardly a slam dunk, especially if he appoints one or two conservative justices to the court.

  • Jim Lichtman August 26, 2016, 2:30 pm

    Three points:

    1.) “Mr. Trump’s statements, re: Muslims and immigration, have always and ever been to temporarily suspend entry of Muslims into the U.S. whose citizenship rests in nations where ISIS-related turmoil is present…”

    That is incorrect.

    Here is Mr. Trump’s original statement from Dec. 8, 2015:

    “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

    On June 26, 2016, Mr. Trump changed his stance:

    “We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place.”

    What is the current U.S. vetting process?

    David Inserra, Policy Analyst, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, offers a detailed explanation.

    2.) “In 1952, it was applied against an ideology–Communism by Carter, against a foreign hostile nation…”

    That is incorrect.

    After the Act underwent several modifications, President Carter used the 1965 Act to implement a Presidential Directive: “The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”

    Carter’s intentions were to compel Iran to release Americans held hostage which failed.

    3.) “[used]…by Trump, against a religious ideology that has declared war on the U.S.

    That is only partially correct.

    Trump is calling for a ban on individuals based on religious ideology. However, the Muslim faith has not declared war on the U.S., only a small, extremist element has.

    • David February 6, 2017, 2:02 pm

      Jim Lichtman,
      I think you could be put in the category of “Fake News”. Have you read 8 USC 1182 (f) which states, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

      As Dave above commented …”Islam is a belief system that opposes the American Constitution and strives to overthrow it. If a Muslim wishes to be faithful to his or her religion he must not accept the rule of non-believers (Q.9:23). They are ordered to “not obey the disbelievers and strive against them with the utmost strenuousness (Q. 25:52) because Muslims are made an exalted nation that they may rule over others (Q.2:143).

      Muslims are, therefore, required to “fight the unbelievers, and kill them wherever you find them until there is no more fitnah (dissension, resistance, disbelief) and until religion is for Allah” i.e. Islam and “unbelievers desist in their unbelief.” (Q. 2:191-193)

      Therefore, does this not imply that this Executive Order is not only constitutional, but it also becomes the constitutional duty of our gov’t to enforce a true Muslim ban, and eradicate from our country, any who would hold these “ideals” to be true?”

      • JMR February 10, 2017, 2:08 pm

        Yes, this supposed “fact checking” post is itself inaccurate and misleading.

        The very first time the author purports to quote Title 8 USC Sec. 1182 *by putting quotes* around the paragraph, he errs by summarizing, not quoting. Further he is pulling out the least relevant parts of Title 8. What Daniel above quoted is spot on to what the law currently is with respect to presidential powers regarding immigration.

        Now we have the very liberal ninth circuit upholding a stay of the administration’s temporary ban on immigration from select countries. In light of the current judicial attacks on a power that the president clearly has, it’s interesting to look at what the Supreme Court said about the power courts should have in immigration matters (C&S Airlines v. Waterman SS Corp, 1948) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/103/case.html:

        “The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports neither are nor ought to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences. But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities, nor responsibility, and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.”

        This is sound reasoning against the courts having any business halting executive orders such as the temporary ban the president issued recently. That should indeed be left to the executive and legislative branches.

        Those are facts from the law, sir, not baseless propaganda.

  • Mike B September 21, 2016, 6:37 am

    Once I got past the irony [of] a person who appears to be a Democrat or liberal posting a story on a web site with “ethics” in the name, I read your story because you claimed to want to find objective sources. But after reading it, I agree with Mr. Frank’s comment. Snopes has long been known not to be the reliable truth teller it proclaims to be, and falls into the same category as Wikipedia, namely sources you should view with suspicion, and one you certainly should not cite as a objective source.

    • Jim Lichtman September 21, 2016, 4:05 pm

      Thanks for your comments, Mike.
      In case you missed it, however, in response to Bruce Frank I offered two independent sites (see below) that back-up the information originally put forth by Snopes.

      1) Here is the complete text of President Carter’s speech taken from The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara’s website. If you read the entire speech, the conclusions made by Snopes appear accurate. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233

      2) Further, Snopes said that the Iranian Hostage Crisis “lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981.” According to the University of Maryland Baltimore County, “The Iran Hostage Crisis lasted from 1979-1981…for 444 days.”
      http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/lessondisplay.php?lesson=70

  • MGD October 25, 2016, 11:02 am

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
    8 USC 1182 (14) (f) “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President- Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate…”

    This is settled Federal law. The president can ban anyone for any reason he/she wants to.

  • NT November 8, 2016, 6:59 pm

    You’re an absolute idiot—logic escapes you…

  • T Keel November 14, 2016, 1:03 pm

    I think the way Trump said he was going to actually do this is what is hilarious and proves his ignorance. When asked how he would do this he responded, “they [border agents] would ask, ‘Are you Muslim?’ ”

    So you don’t trust radical Muslims to be here Mr. Trump, but you will believe them at the border when they say, “no I am not Muslim!” Do you realize how IGNORANT that sounds, and anyone that believes this would work is just as IGNORANT to believe it whether or not it violates the constitution or not.

    Laughing so hard at this one.

    • montagna_lunga January 28, 2017, 11:03 pm

      Immediate demands for explanation from and obvious adversary do not often get polite comprehensive explanations. Not everyone bends over backward to be polite to an obvious adversary. And after reading your post and belittlement of the POTUS, you have no high horse to speak from and demand “but he’s the president”. If ignorance is being illustrated here, it is in your reflexive name-calling -30-

  • Zach November 29, 2016, 7:10 am

    I agree with Jay, [above]. I read most of your article, but with the understanding that you were already prejudiced in your response. Presenting your opinion in an article without first characterizing the subject as ignorant, goes a long way in making your point believable.

  • Kevin Welch November 30, 2016, 7:40 am

    The heck with the BS. If you were outside playing with your children and a Pitt Bull comes cruising down the street, do you allow the dog to approach your children or do you rush your children in the house? That’s what I thought!!! Common sense people! We have to protect ourselves! If a few good people can’t get in, so be it! We didn’t create their situation and we’re not making it worse, we’re just helping ours!

    • Jim Lichtman November 30, 2016, 9:03 am

      So now we’re comparing people who have gone through, on average, a two-year vetting process to enter our country to “Pitt Bulls” … and that’s your idea of “common sense”?
      Voltaire said it best, “Common sense is not so common.”

      • Barb January 29, 2017, 8:08 am

        They are being flown in with NO papers–in the dead of night–by the refugee pirates and “religious” groups that our government is paying to betray us.

        • E.M.C. January 30, 2017, 2:51 am

          Detainees under this order were green card holders and legal residents, or previously vetted (over the course of years) Iraqi translators whose work enabled our troops to do their work – translators who put their lives and those of their families at risk in order to help American troops.

          All arguments of the legality of the EO become moot when a federal court issues an order preventing its implementation.

          http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/01/28/darweesh.v.trump_decision.and.order.document-3.pdf

          The executive branch denying that court order by ordering a continuance of the action it stays is unconstitutional and unacceptable.

  • Pete December 2, 2016, 10:13 am

    Jim… give everyone a break and dispense with all the pc and legal crap!! We’ve been to the moon and back 6 times, the POTUS, congress, homeland security, et. al. can decide a safe, legal means to prevent radical jihadists from entering America, whether temporary or not. NOT doing ANYTHING to PREVENT this radical muslim curse that’s destroying Europe and Scandinavia from entering the United States of America is irresponsible and a primary violation of the POTUS’ constitutional duty to protect the citizens of this great country. Let’s face facts without all the politically correct nonsense: is it more important to be concerned about a muslim who wants to emigrate, or the will and safety of American citizens? America has zero obligation to accept the world’s poor and suffering yearning to breathe free. That was a loooong time ago and no longer applies as the world exists today. Lastly, to suggest to Mr. Welch that he’s comparing wannabe jihadi radicals, or sincere muslims wanting to come to this country, which they have zero right to do, to pitt bulls is unwarranted, silly and stupid in the least.

  • Michel G December 6, 2016, 9:47 pm

    Any immigration without assimilation is Invasion by enemy forces!

  • Joe H December 11, 2016, 2:45 pm

    Jim Lichtman is obviously a very intelligent idiot….my opinion. Jim be sure to thank me for my comment.

  • Joe H December 11, 2016, 2:47 pm

    Oh darn…my comment is awaiting moderation….hmmm…..what is going to be moderated?

    • Boom Bada Bing January 31, 2017, 3:03 am

      I’ll thank you for not contributing anything.

  • Steve January 9, 2017, 5:46 am

    Jim, one of the things that pretty much all liberal mined individuals do that just drives me up the wall is they continue to insist and believe Constitutional rights and privileges apply to non-citizens just as they do for American citizens. Jim, THEY DO NOT!!! Until an immigrant has gone through the process and satisfied all of the legal requirements to become a US citizen and takes the oath of citizenship (one of which is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which Muslims are forbidden from doing because it violates their religion), they have no Constitutional rights. Instead they are subject to the laws that have been enacted and which apply to non-citizens who are granted TEMPORARY/CONDITIONAL legal entry into the US by law. As is the American way, we seek to treat all visitors to our country in ways that are welcoming and respectful. We want them to feel as at home in our country as possible, but the fact remains they are not citizens and thus it is expected they will conduct themselves in a manner befitting an invited guest. The US Government reserves the right to deny any application or request for entry and can revoke ones legal entry at any time for any violation of the given terms for entry. Again, stop thinking a student or guest worker here on visa from Saudi Arabia has the same rights as you and I. They simply do not.

    • Mike January 30, 2017, 2:12 pm

      Not entirely true. The problem with conservatives is that they think the constitution was written for and only applies to white, christian men. The bill of rights applies to everyone in US territory, including illegal immigrants.

    • Pam February 15, 2017, 7:59 am

      We are talking about Citizens of the United States of America and Non-citizens. What is the problem????
      Our Consitution and our Supreme Court protect law-abiding citizens, NOT non-citizens or aliens.

  • G. Sanders January 21, 2017, 10:22 am

    I remain suspicious- this article references Snopes, which is known to be a husband-wife team that has contributed to the Democratic National Committee and has been discredited before. Secondly, the article cites a Harvard “law professor” who has ties to NBC- a network which has repeatedly crafted misleading, false and “fake” news. Thirdly, the author of this article starts it off with a Bizzaro cartoon which depicts Trump as a Neanderthal. The “bias” is clear.

    While Carter may’ve been somewhat specific in his EO regarding Iranians, I believe Trump also has reasonable latitude to use the McCarrin-Walter Act as, while not all Muslim followers engage in terrorism, all terrorists attribute their acts and following to the Muslim religion. Refusing entry into the United States, until a thorough vetting can be made, seems reasonable and prudent to me.

    • Touting January 31, 2017, 3:06 am

      The reason people don’t like Snopes is that they’ve discredited claims made by conservatives, so some “conservatives” have had to try to write hit pieces on them so their fellow conservatives can continue to cover their eyes and ears. Snopes doesn’t tell you what you want to hear, so your response is, “I don’t like that fact, so I choose not to believe it.”

      It’s why conservative live in such a bubble: they’ve made it so only biased conservative media is apparently reliable, and since conservative media just tells them what they want to hear, they can use those cherry-picked and sometimes simply false information and live in that bubble, while other fact-checkers will be labeled as liberal.

  • D.A.Hidges January 23, 2017, 5:39 pm

    The Constitution applies to Americans not aliens. Keep that in mind and all the rest is moot. You can’t apply it to aliens,proved by the fact that it doesn’t apply to Americans in foriegn countries.

  • Elizabeth January 24, 2017, 10:11 am

    President Trump would have the authority to remove resident aliens by using the court that was established in 1996. It is called the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court. It has never been used but is still a valid court and can be used.

    It was established under 8 U.S. Code Subchapter V.

  • Smw January 26, 2017, 7:34 pm

    While the constitutionality may be in question, Trump will first need a new/amended law. Then the Supreme Court can decide.

    The McCarran-Walter Act was amended in 1990. The Immigration Act of 1990 does appear to require more specificity than a religious affiliation, e.g. “Muslim”. The government must know or have “reasonable grounds to believe” that an alien satisfies specific “grounds for exclusion”.

    “https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/11/18/mccarran-walter-act-reborn/389a81bf-00ac-434b-b869-3d3e29b13eae/?utm_term=.6c626abbfef9

    “…the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act is gone. In one of its last acts, the 101st Congress repealed this embarrassing remnant of the McCarthy era, a law that permitted the exclusion and expulsion of immigrants with politically “incorrect” beliefs and associations.”

    https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/03/04/IMMACT1990.pdf

    An Act

    To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to change the level, and preference system for admission, of immigrants to the United States, and to provide for administrative naturalization, and for other purposes.

    101st Congress Nov. 29, 1990 104 STAT. 4978 ______________ [S. 358]

    PL 101-649 IMMIGRATION ACT of 1990

    TITLE VI–EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION
    SEC. 601. REVISION OF GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION.

    “(B) Terrorist activities.–
    “(i) In general.–Any alien who–
    “(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity, or

    “(II) a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iii)), is excludable.

  • Bill D. January 28, 2017, 2:02 pm

    Considering 8 out of the 10 largest Muslim counties in the world are unaffected by this, the statements that this is a ban on Muslims is just another fake news headline.

    • Michael January 31, 2017, 3:07 am

      Read the damn date: this was written in early 2016 a month or two after Trump proposed a complete shutdown of Muslims.

      Your comment is “fake,” and you can’t read to save your life.

  • Jim January 28, 2017, 10:21 pm

    While I appreciate your research and open dialog on the subject of the immigration ban, I must disagree with your position. As much as I was never a fan of the Carter administration I did agree with his ban then and I do agree with the current ban now. I don’t know how old you are so I don’t know if you know much true middle east ideology from experience. I was in the military during the mentioned Iranian hostage crisis. I wont, in fact I cant go into those details but I can tell you I was in the middle east during that time and the hatred for the USA was real and in fact still is real today. Many in the various governments and factions and religious groups would like nothing more than to see the downfall of the USA. With that said it would only seem prudent to enact a ban until we can formulate a vetting process to weed out those who perpetuate that ideology. While it is distasteful the thought of turning someone away it must be done to insure the safety of those present on our shores. Thanks for the article! – Jim

  • Philip N Cole January 29, 2017, 4:10 am

    Really! What Trump said in a campaign speech, versus his recent action are not identical. Quoting a leftwing/progressives including “a constitutional” lawyer, re totally irrelevant and misleading… Tribe? How close to the Constitution does Ginsberg follow… get your facts straight.
    My disappointment is not only in you but, in President Carter, not coming to the defense of a President, wo is attempting to protect the people of the United States, as he has sworn to do… revisit and correct your biased comments.

    • The real bias is within you January 31, 2017, 3:09 am

      Honestly, the most biased person is you. And anyone complaining about the article. It’s amazing how the most biased people are the ones to point out some news site and go, “That’s left-wing!”

      You people have made it so anything that contradicts your snowflake bubble is “leftwing” or “biased.” Hope nobody has a sharp objects that pops that bubble!

  • Some guy. January 29, 2017, 6:02 am

    Yeah so Trump only banded Muslims from 7 different countries fraught with extremism, terrorism, torture, and countless enemies of the state. Not just Muslims as you sir stated.

    • Some other guy January 31, 2017, 3:09 am

      This was written a year ago. Do conservatives not read anymore?

  • Barb January 29, 2017, 8:02 am

    All the countries in Europe, who have allowed in Muslim immigrants and so called ‘refugees’, are now in CRISIS and suffering. Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, who have refused to allow in Moslems, don’t require heavily armed police, guarding sites and walking the streets, as you see in Germany, France, Belgium. Swedish police are overwhelmed with the Moslem crime rate. Islam is not compatible with civilization. They all worship their allah and follow his koran. They hide their plan to take over, until their number is high enough, then they could care less about their host countries laws and customs.

  • Terry January 29, 2017, 8:45 am

    A lot of say about nothing. So what’s the point about this article? America has an incredible problem….Minimal vetting. Temporary suspensions is a starting point. Previous administrations, including Obama’s, did their share of deportations. Let’s calm down and give Trump a chance.

    • Johnson January 31, 2017, 3:11 am

      Read the date: this was written a year ago. Asking him to “give Trump a chance” (and he blew his chance during the primaries, to be honest) when this was well before he was even elected means you cannot read.

      Also, you’re objectively wrong: vetting has been substantial for ages. Perhaps listen to someone else besides Trump for how much vetting there is of people who come here.

  • Gary January 29, 2017, 9:55 am

    I would suggest reading this section of the statute under discussion, while it may be eventually ruled unconstitutional, as of now, it does seem to me to provide the President to suspend the entry into the US of a class (group) of aliens for any reason or no reason, no?(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

    • Smw January 30, 2017, 11:27 am

      You are right. I had tunnel vision and was focused the Mccaran-Walter Act that started this string a year ago. I see now, after reading your comment and the comments of others, that the ban relied on 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act/U. S Code 1187.

  • Smw January 29, 2017, 10:04 am

    I am not sure all comments are directed at my entry or just general statements but just in case –

    Bill D – “The order also says that the administration should “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” I my opinion, that sounds like a religious test.

    Jim – I did not state a position on the ban, I only suggested that current law did not support it. (Easily side stepped by the EO.) I have no doubt that you are correct and that the U. S. Is hated – I am old, was currently serving, and remember the times quite well. The question people differ on, I think, is if the ban, as promulgated by President Trump, is the appropriate means to counteract that hate and terorrism that results. I haven’t decided for myself yet. There are studies claiming that a blanket ban has more costs than benefits.
    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

    Some Guy – I agree with you. But I still wonder if the ban, as instituted, is the best we could do. I guess we’ll find out.

    Barb – yes European countries let in a lot in a hurry – with little or no vetting. If you believed that Obama’s carried out adequate 18 – 24 month vetting, then the situations are not the same. If you don’t, then, I see your point. I, personally, accept that adequate vetting did occur – admittedly on the word of the government.

    Terry – same answer: was current vetting adequate or not? I believe it was. I have been giving President Trump a chance. And I certainly hope that what we have seen the first week is not a precursor of what we will see in the future.

  • DENNIS January 29, 2017, 11:11 am

    It is legal already…Per U.S. Code Law 1182

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

    It may not sit well with many, but it is legal. People from certain regions of the world are a perceived threat and until proven otherwise, not allowed to come in.

  • iain January 29, 2017, 1:32 pm

    With regard to a wall it is my understanding that there already is both a physical wall ( thought not long) and a virtual wall in place so all Trump is proposing is finishing it, as for immigration the laws to which you refer were written in a different world and are out of date the with the current world climate, while many who wish to go to the US may be good people there are also many who just want to watch it burn so imposing stricter checks on those that come is prudent not to is suicidal also as even you know laws can be changed and in the case of immigration need to be.

  • Josh January 29, 2017, 4:28 pm

    This really gave me hope. I came to the realization that you can always make something right and justify depending on the amount, or lack, of research. This article is well written and very convincing, but many in the comments dissected it and forced the author to defend his point. The hours spent researching just for comments on this forum I know not, but it gives me great hope knowing some people actually still research instead of believing every single fact they hear, whether on the mainstream news or a wild conservative post.

    However, in bare legal terms, he’s banning them from specific regions where extreme Islam is embodied right now. It’s not as much as a religion as it is a “location” thing, however, religion definitely plays a big role.

    “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

    This sole sub-clause of US Code 1182, left in context, proves Trump’s actions legit. This fact is irrefutable.

  • Tom January 29, 2017, 4:56 pm

    I would not try to defend some of the rhetoric used by Trump before making this move, BUT this could never be viewed as a ban on Muslims, because only seven so-called Muslim nations are on the list. That means that Muslims from all other countries can still enter. These are the countries that Obama declared in 2011 to be significant hot beds for terrorists, so the ban is justified, which is not to say that it is the right thing to do. When we look at the terrorism that has taken place in Europe over the last few years, and the nationalities of those involved, one could easily justify President Trump’s action.

  • Keith January 29, 2017, 6:11 pm

    The problem with your article is that it makes an assumption that the travel ban is based on religion. That is patently false and thus the remainder of your argument is null and void. In fact the 5 largest muslim countries in the world, with nearly 1 billion Muslims are free to travel to the US as both immigrants and non-immigrants.
    As with most liberal bent media, you are obfuscating the ban scope and it shows clearly.

    • Kevin February 9, 2017, 5:35 pm

      “The problem with your article is that it makes an assumption that the travel ban is based on religion.
      […]
      As with most liberal bent media, you are obfuscating the ban scope and it shows clearly.”

      And the problem with your reading comprehension is that the article was written a year before the ban you’re referring to.

  • LEE January 30, 2017, 1:10 am

    Re. the above on ‘Japanese Internment” as “a tragic mistake” and “unconstitutional”:

    It might have been unconstitutional but it was a effective measure to prevent attacks upon this country and it’s military facilities and citizenry during WWII. Available from Amazon or the Manzanar Historical Society website is the booklet ‘Death Valley- It’s Impounded Americans’. The booklet evidences the fact of violent assaults upon the few overtly pro-Allied internees at Manzanar. There were 62 internees there who were relocated to ex-CCC barracks in Death Valley and given haven from the Fascist element which preyed on patriotic Americans in Manzanar. Joe Kurihara, a pro-Hirohito fanatic, had created a ‘Death List’ of 100 fellow internees who were marked for execution: The refugees stayed there several month until they went eastward for employment or college enrollment. Their last joint activity was in Los Angeles, 1947 when they hosted one of the Rangers from Death Valley at a gala celebrating his retirement from the National Park Service.

    The booklet does not deal with the reasons for their flight: As a precis of the situation at Manzanar: Fred Tayama, made a presentation urging more enlistment of internees with the Allied cause. The enrollment into our military was minimal: Only 4% of the eligible young internees entered into the U.S. Military service. This means 16 out of 17 declined to join the ‘Band of Brothers’ who assaulted the Axis forces and broke through to tear open the gates of the death camps and save the lives of 1000’s of ‘walking dead’ Who could say that the essence of the Allied war effort was not the principal humanitarian goal of ending the war and free those damned to horrific deaths at the hands of their Axis captors? How can anyone be excused for their failure to join this righteous crusade?

    As he urged enlistment, Tayama was seized and badly beaten, He was rescued and was placed in the hospital on the administrative side of the camp . This was Dec. 5th, 1942. Two nights later, on Dec. 7th (‘one year anniversary’ of the Pearl Harbor attack? Is it a coincidence?) a throng estimated at 3000, singing various Japanese patriotic military and nationalist songs, challenged the authority of the camp administration. Ramming a truck through the fencing separating the administrative side of the camp from the inmate area, a group forced entry into the hospital to “finish off Tayama”. The staff hid FT under a bed and deceived the assailants by stating the injured man had already been sent to the hospital at Bishop, Calif. Tayama was one who found sanctuary in Death Valley. H

    5000 internees chose early repatriation to Japan. Some, like Joe KUrihara, chose, to his eternal sorrow, to return to the defeated Japan, at the war’s conclusion. Thousands of others were not given the opportunity to return to Japan due to the fact that their eligibility for military induction precluded their expatriation. These also, certainly constituted a threat: (see ‘No, No boys’) The pre-eminence of Axis sentiment in Manzanar might be exemplified by the experience of Karl Yoneda: Yoneda enlisted in the U.S. Army and as his action became known, he was accosted by one Harry Uyeno, with the threat: “In a few months, when the Japanese infantry marches into Manzanar, you will be the first one I have stood up against the wall and shot!” Yoneda’s wife, Elaine Black Yoneda, and son, were among those who were given haven in Death Valley.

    When one recalls what havoc the murderous Timothy McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers accomplished with ammonium nitrate (common fertilizer) admixed with diesel oil, how would it have been possible to allow those of Japanese ancestry to remain in proximity to the military installations and defense facilities on the West Coast?

    Once ‘sworn in’ every member of our military suffers the suspension of his civil liberties: It is the price that must be paid if our hard won freedoms are otherwise retained. It is, as this thread title suggests, a matter of “inconvenient facts.”

  • Keith ....my real name not a pseudonym January 30, 2017, 6:19 am

    I would agree with many comments above that this ban is not based on faith but being from a terrorist country. However I would also like to point out this is an extremely long article trying to justify your position. There is an assumption that judges make that the longer the pleading in a court case the more likely the author is trying to wow the court with B. S. . An argument that can be one with fewer words generally is the truth and the winning case. The truth does not take many words to explain.

  • FAS January 30, 2017, 7:30 am

    Nice spin.

  • Nobodi January 30, 2017, 7:36 am

    As it is a current law, see website link:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

    Scroll through and look for sub paragraph (f) it states that the president has the authority there. So long as it is still a law the constitution will back it up. Also the countries where Trump wants to ban incoming travel temporarily until a proper vetting process is established, are not countries where most Muslims reside. So the idea of religious favoritism is a weak point that arguably could say that there is no favoritism, other than allowing anyone from thise areas here because they would otherwise be killed for their religion by religious militant fanatics who oppose, through violence, any religion. Then again how is the establishing religious favoritism when the countries, where the mass majority of Muslims are not banned and this order is leaving room for people to escape persecution?

    In the executive order there is even language that states there will be a case by case basis of continuing or allowing current and future visas to be issued or reissued under the new system and that people do not have to wait 90 to 120 days for that process to start.

    Meanwhile, all I am seeing here and in the media against it, is a bunch of biased and manipulative practices. Even since this law has been amended since its inception, the part that give the president authority to protect the citizens of the U.S. and our national security (two thing which should always come first on this topic) still has clear language.

    So anyone that says its a violation on grounds of discrimination, please tell me how when the majority of the world’s Muslim population can come here unfettered? Don’t say because they will be asked to provide their religion, the agents in tasked at monitoring entry need only look at those peoples’ passports. If an agent does, after receiving a passport…then THAT PERSON would be in violation of this order. Use common sense people.

    To the author: stop trying to draw straws based on information clearly misrepresented for the sake of fear mongering.

  • Jack Russell January 30, 2017, 9:42 am

    As soon as you fall into the trap of using the hard left leaning Snopes to add veracity to your claims you are going to lose most objective readers. Here is what 8 U.S. Code 1182 (f) says: Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of
    any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to
    the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for
    such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
    aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or
    impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be
    appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial
    airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney
    General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of
    fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United
    States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the
    Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens
    transported to the United States by such airline.

  • William Thackrey January 30, 2017, 1:20 pm

    As Jack Russel points out, under 8 US 1182(f) the president has broad powers to suspend entry of any or all aliens by any criteria that “he may deem to be appropriate”. Everything else is just spin.

  • Nancy January 30, 2017, 2:38 pm

    I have just read all the retoric about this law. I feel that this ban is needed and it is temporary. When our ancestors came to this country they spent time on Ellis Island while they were in effect vetted. Since we have had so many attacks in this country we need to seriously vet these people. I for one am tired of having to worry about being shot for going somewhere. If we went to these countries and tried to do what they do here we would be beheaded immediately. This is the United States of America and the only laws that should be allowed are those in our Constitution. People who are coming here claim they are being persecuted and yet that is what they are doing to us by coming here and demanding that we change our laws to suit them.

    We need to stand behind our President and help him keep his promise to keep all of the people safe. If we keep,letting radicals into this country we will no longer be a free nation. We have enough problem with riots in this country without adding to it by letting people who have no problem killing us because we don’t believe what they do. Freedom doesn’t mean you disrespect and attack with intent to kill those who don’t believe the same as you.

    May God help us all if that is allowed to happen in this country. We are proud of our heritage and that we are still a free nation. Let us all stop protesting because one side lost and band together to bring our country back to what it was. We need to get rid of people like George Soros who spreads discontent and unrest because he is a sick man who is rich. Most of your protesters have been paid to protest. Let’s end all this nonsense now and go back to being what we have been for over 200 years. That is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

  • Ralph Russel January 30, 2017, 5:44 pm

    The U.S. Constitution does not make any promises of protection to all the peoples of the world. Only U.S. citizens.. Thats what I was taught in high school back in the sixties..Was not aware that the Constitution has been changed since that time. People who make petition to become a legal citizen of the U.S. would be protected under the law.. If peoples from other countries wish the get up their home citizenship and become U.S. citizens, come thru the front door legally.. All that needs to done is the enforcement of the laws on the books and most of the immigration issues can be settle.. However, our elected “holy ones” have just let it pass up the table and they have looked the other way for many reasons.. Folks I am not a Harvard Grad, just a high school grad that believes in the U.S.Constition and had taken an Oath the defend it from enemies from within as well as from out .. I’ve worn the uniform and fought overseas to do just that and in assistance to other so that they too could enjoy the freedoms we enjoy because of our Constitution.. RRK , Vietnam Vet USMC 1964-1968..

  • wbf January 30, 2017, 8:00 pm

    Hey there, nice back n forth until that one guy came in who start downing people for their opinion. So I thought it, the ban, was concerning 7 different countries that a temp ban had been placed on? What gives?

  • Robert Beaulieu January 31, 2017, 4:45 am

    I find it intresting that everyone keeps calling this a Muslim ban, it does not ban Muslims it bans all people from seven nations. There are 40 other nations where a majority of population are muslim. Non of these nations were baned. So please explain how this law bans muslims?

  • Bob January 31, 2017, 8:29 am

    I understand the doctrine of “taqiyya” allows any Muslim to lie to an infidel under Sharia law. According to Muslim scholars, this is widely practiced in Islam today, especially with regard to the U.S. and western civilization in particular. With that in mind, how can we believe anything that any Muslim says ? Study this facet of Islam. I understand, from what some Muslims say, that deception, is fully justified and accepted by Allah and was practiced by the prophet. True or false ? Study it and come to your own conclusions.

  • Timothyf7 January 31, 2017, 9:54 am

    ” most Republicans in Congress do not agree with such a ban.” Another lie from you! Twenty is not most. Another Fake News article! Learn to research!

  • w bradley January 31, 2017, 10:02 am

    no snopes is not a legit website this has been proven now on to the issue the shooting on happened on obamas watch and the countries that are on the ban list are the same countries that obama used in a similar ban trump is not the frist to do this bush did it , clinton did it obama did it so the key point is see that rump has stated and it is in the order this is temporary so that we can get a handle on the vetting process what he has done is perfectly legal no violation of the constitution at all. and us code 1182 was made and passed by democrats and they are the one screaming now that is being hypocritical the thing to remember is that it is a temporary ban not for ever.

  • Ike January 31, 2017, 12:38 pm

    WOW!!
    DID You Cherry pick this with LIBERAL Leaning Content!!
    You state that Trumps proposal came in response to a mass shooting perpetrated by an American citizen and his immigrant wife.
    YOU Seem to forget that there have been NUMEROUS OTHER Attacks carried out by MUSLIMS in this nation, BESIDES that 1 incident!!
    AND it was NOT THAT only that caused Trumps EO!!!
    BUT typical for someone who RELIES on SNOPES a Proven Liberal RAG to document how they are right and others are wrong!!!
    WOW TOTAL BIAS here!!!

  • Hugh Jardon January 31, 2017, 5:21 pm

    You’re a liar, Trump’s temporary pause is by nationality, not religion. READ it. Maybe when your family is the victim of Islam murder like in Orlando you will know.

  • Mondo February 1, 2017, 10:27 am

    Considering Islam as a religion only is nonsense. Islam is a way of life with a judicial system and political. They try to impose the way of life on the people. They would not respect the political system of the country they lived. It is an ideology more than a religion.

  • Rick G February 1, 2017, 11:32 am

    What happened to provide for the common defense and when did the constitution start applying to the world? It is called the U.S. Constitution. Not the Muslims of foreign countries Constitution so the constitution does not apply to Non U.S. Citizens. We can protect ourselves from foreign and domestic problems. At this time we can not trust the refugees that are coming to our country France and Germany did and you know what happened there.

  • Frank Wilcox February 1, 2017, 2:52 pm

    Trump’s plan targets individuals by ideology. Bull shit! He is protecting America.

  • John February 2, 2017, 4:56 am

    This article is based on the false assumption that the ban is on Muslims. The ban is on seven countries, one of them being Iran not an ideology. And President Trump has stated this conclusively.

  • Semilogical February 2, 2017, 6:27 am

    Snopes has been Snoped and found to be cherry-pickers. They have also been found to totally ignore pertinent facts on a few subjects. If you contradict their published “findings” you can be the target of numerous “joinings” that cause you to get an immediate flood of junk mail. Two times I presented facts to debunk their debunk, both times my email was flooded with crap – – all within two hours of my comment on their site.

    You can believe them all you wish, but the bottom line in this current situation is that we have been admitting potential combatants into the country. These combatants are not religious people but part of a political ideology that wants to destroy the western world from the inside. Check out what is happening in Europe. Are all muslims combatants? No, some are pawns that seem to have a job of stirring the political pot for the favor of muslims.

    I could be paranoid about their cause, but there is also enough commentary from the muslims themselves that support what I believe.

    They have stated that Sharia Law overrides the Constitution. It’s obvious that the bleeding heart liberals will not see the end result of their actions, but will blame anyone that tries to stop the flood of foreign warriors into the country.

    WAKE UP AMERICA, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

  • Michael February 2, 2017, 4:44 pm

    There are law professors who are so blatantly liberal and progressive they cannot be counted on for a good opinion of the law or our US constitution. Of course there are some on the other side of that fence that are just as unreliable. But this article in its conclusions is quite as unreliable.

  • Caterina February 3, 2017, 9:32 pm

    Snopes is a Leftist site and not objective. To say that one president had authority based on the circumstances of his historical conflict and another president does not have authority based on his decision-making about world conflict is garbage.

  • Jerry Jones February 4, 2017, 5:02 am

    “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States
    Talk about mis quoting people
    Totally biased bogus article

  • Peter Deeds February 4, 2017, 9:42 am

    >”I wanted to find objective information minus political spin.”<

    You are VERY quick to identify Conservative sources, but totally FAIL to identify liberal sources, case in point – EVERY honest person in the world knows full well that snopes.com is run by people who have donated more than a million dollars to democrat and liberal causes since the Clinton administration.

    Beyond that, your whole essay is nothing more than an exercise in nit-picking parsing of the facts..

    My wife recently took her Oath of Citizenship, part of which contained a phrase that she reject all allegiance to any other sovereign authority, organization or party that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government.

    That means that if your alligigence is to a religion that bars you from having loyalty to a government, you cannot be loyal to the nation you live in.

    We have other religions in the U.S. that put their loyalty to God above loyalty to nation, one of which I am a practicing member, but NONE of them advocate the fundamental changing of America from a religiously freedom, all-inclusive one to one of "only us, convert, pay dhimmi tax, submit to slavery, or die" system!

    So much for your false flag of "objective information minus political spin!"

  • Ron Johnson February 6, 2017, 12:41 pm

    Ok, I do not get it , the ban was for countries that are known for terrorism towards the U.S. . If it were a ban on Muslims then , Indonesia should have been included on the list. Does anyone else have a better idea? If so, offer it up and lets hear what you have to say. If not, quit complaining and let the President do what he promised the american people .

  • ISIS Killer February 7, 2017, 7:33 pm

    Get a friggin grip people! The intent was outstanding, it was the detail-process that was not properly vetted, prior to execution. When BO first came in, he fell on his sword many times. Yet, America did not see anywhere near the level of racism, bigotry, and divisiveness, that is currently being exhibited by members of Democratic Party. It REALLY pisses me off, and I’m sure I also speak for the vast majority of Republicans, that the Democrats went nuclear on Trump and the Republican Party after the win, and they continue their rant. Give it rest Democrats! You LOST! Put on your big boy-girl pants, man up and woman up, and give the new a guy an opportunity to succeed! Here is how many Conservatives feel, sent to me by a Conservative activist…”I dread the violent, intolerant ideologue extremists that now dominate the Democratic Party in this country, and are trying to impose their own dangerous dogma and fascist/marxist agendas upon everyone in a de facto coup d’etat by illegal, non-democratic, and violent means. THEY are the REAL violent racists and bigots! Just look at the riots in Washington on Inauguration Day, and the destructive out of control riots in Oakland/Berkeley yesterday!” In closing, let’s all agree, that America IS at WAR against radical Islamists – terrorists, and they all need to die. And, in order to expedite their deaths, we should all also be in agreement, that these scum, should not be allowed to enter our United States, and that their elimination from the human race, should occur outside the US to the maximum extent possible.

  • Wayne February 8, 2017, 9:16 am

    Actually the argument that we are violating possible visa holders or immigrants constitutional rights is stupid. Those rights apply to US citizens and people already here. They do not apply to the rest of the world. In other words, if your here your protected, if your still outside the US no constitutional protection.

  • Daniel February 8, 2017, 1:56 pm

    The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 only addresses how quotas and other limits within the normal immigration system operates. It does NOT inhibit emergency measures made by the executive. 1182 is for immediate emergency needs and not for day-to-day operations.

    People keep claiming it is a Muslim ban but it’s not. Not yet. It’s a ban based on travel and the locations of origin and/or destinations. These are dangerous areas. If we were at war with Germany, it would be stupid to allow German immigrants into the US. We have been bombing 6 of 7 of those countries. Why is it it not stupid? This is an emergency measure and has nothing to do with Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 procedural modifications made therein.

  • Andy Stout February 11, 2017, 10:43 am

    I fail to appreciate the perceived wrongness attributed to the act of banning immigrants based on their ideology.
    We only contribute to the demise of our way of life when we welcome immigrants whose entrenched medieval ideology is diametrically opposed to the principles, values and morals we consider immutable and inherent. Islam is anathema to very core of the free democratic civilization we cherish.
    Paradoxically, our noble sentiments of inclusiveness have unwittingly backfired since they grant Islam full access to assimilate and spread in our midst.
    The fox has full reign to prey in the hen house. Bon appetit!

  • Daniel February 11, 2017, 1:49 pm

    If I was going to attempt to fact check something I would try including facts in there somewhere. You stated “By contrast, Trump’s proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy, and one directed at all adherents of a particular religion (regardless of their nationalities) rather than citizens of a particular country.” At no point in Trumps executive action did he said he was banning Muslims, and in fact DID specify COUNTRIES, not a religion as his target. Try sticking to the facts when “fact checking”

  • James Mealller February 13, 2017, 9:22 am

    Jim, let’s suppose, for a moment, that the First Amendment actually declared that, in the interest of maintaining “domestic tranquility,” it shall be illegal for any non-citizen or other foreign entity to disseminate information that is contradictory to or directly opposes any official policy or assertion of any of the three branches of government. (understand, first of all, that even pretending this to be true leaves a bad taste in my mouth).

    But, suppose that this were the law and a foreign newspaper published a story that was in direct conflict with and critical of an official policy of the U.S. government. Now, suppose the Justice Department declared that publishing that story was a violation of our Constitution (hang with me, here). Would that newspaper not assert that the Constitution of the United States of America has no standing outside the borders of the United Sates and that the neither the newpaper nor the author of the story could be prosecuted?

    How, then, can anyone say that any provision of our Constitution applies to foreign nationals inside or outside our borders?

    • Donna house March 15, 2017, 9:06 pm

      The constitution only applies to American Citizens of the united States ! And it only applies to American citizens on UNITED States soil

  • 1SG Bud Parker February 14, 2017, 8:56 am

    Isn’t politics a pathetic blight on this once great nation? People of one political persuasion or another demonize anyone from “The Other Party.”

    Current Federal Law 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible Aliens is not difficult to interpret. It is also not a reach to comprehend why it was necessary after WW2 and why it continues to be a useful tool of National Security. From the beginning of time itself, people from another nation have schemed and plotted to acquire control over “the other nation.” A large part of that process involves subterfuge, lying, and other devious activities. We all know this, so it is no great revelation on my part.

    USC 1182 gives POTUS authority to determine what classes of foreigners (not US Citizens) must be disapproved for entry into the USA. For a variety of Federal Judges who are tasked with enforcing Law to sit back on their pale butts and attempt to subscribe Constitutional Rights onto foreigners asking permission to enter the USA is a real stretch of their Constitutional authority. POTUS has invoked his authority to take action IAW USC 1182. That law confers that authority to him exclusively. In my humble opinion this is an issue because people within the Federal System who disapprove of our current President are spending all of their time and energy trying to show Trump in a bad light, rather than focus their concern on National Security.

    There are many great comments made on this article. That is a very worthwhile thing because it stimulates thought and research on extremely important issues we currently face. A “Tip of the Hat” to the author.

  • Steve February 25, 2017, 10:22 pm

    Constitutional protections do not extend to non-citizens of the US – period ! The are governed by the laws (Sharia or whatever) of their native lands. There is no “Constitutionality” argument.

  • Conny Conway March 5, 2017, 4:54 am

    Dear Jim, though I found your article INTERRESTING, you lost just that with mentioning Snopes, which clearly is biased and owned by democrats. If you have other proof of our President’s wrong doing, let us know, otherwise, join the dwindling ranks of Snowflakes, with their hate, half truth and lies. I would love to read ONE, just ONE, article based on truth of unlawfulness, so far I have not

  • Steve Brandon March 16, 2017, 9:40 pm

    Any publication that would use snopes as a basis in forming their opinion is a publication not deserving of even a minute amount of credibility. Time and time again, snopes has proven itself to be totally jaded in their so called “fact checking” and they exist only to serve and promote their agenda.

Leave a Comment