Is it true that Donald Trump’s proposal to ban most Muslims from entering the United State violates the Constitution of the United States? Well, through ignorance or carelessness many politicians and pundits ignore the words of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which constrain the way the laws and U.S. government of the United States is to comport itself with respect to all persons under its jurisdiction, not our own citizens.
Those constraints ought to affect the application of the laws that govern entry into the United States. Though the U.S. government naturally has the prerogative to refuse someone entry, to do so on a basis that treats him as though the (or she) is responsible for the infamous crime of terrorism, when no evidence exists to substantiate the charge, obviously appears to violate both the letter and spirit of the Fifth Amendment. Doing so prejudicially, simply because they profess the Muslim religion, when nothing in particular goes to show that, as individuals, they have committed or otherwise abetted that infamous crime, further exacerbates that apparent violation.
For example, the mere fact that some members of a religious sect practice human sacrifice in its name does not on the face of it constitute just cause to burden all individuals who are members of the sect with a blanket prohibition, imposed without considering what they themselves have actually professed or done. All Mormons were not assumed by law to be guilty of polygamy simply because some Mormons practiced it. Rather, specific charges, based on particular facts, had to be laid and proven against individuals. This is their due, thanks to the presumption of innocence logically connected with the individual possession of unalienable rights (including liberty).
Why, then, should the terrorist practices of some who profess the Muslim religion deprive all Muslims everywhere in the world of the presumption of innocence that is part of the bedrock upon which the whole edifice of due process, within the jurisdiction of the United States, is rationally constructed? People who claim to believe in God-endowed individual rights ought logically to have serious objections to such a collectivist abrogation of individual responsibility. So should people who seriously ponder the biblical injunction against punishing one individual for another’s iniquity (Ezekiel 18:20).
As Americans, the commitment to justice exemplified by our insistence, in this respect, upon due process for all individuals is essential to our national identity. Implementing policies that disrespect this commitment therefore constitutes an existential threat to that identity. In light of the clear and present danger Islamic terrorists undoubtedly pose to our lives and way of life, the idea of banning Muslims throughout the word from entering the United States may appeal to many. But because our enemies threaten to take our lives, must we accept collectivist policies that deny and disparage the just premises of our way of life?
Like the elitist faction anti-republican he has been– and that I say he still is – Donald Trump appears to accept the tyrannical logic that offers security, but only at the price of God-endowed unalienable rights, including liberty. But our Creator’s endowment of right is the basis for the logic that justifies the authority by which, as a free people, we claim the authority to govern ourselves. The Constitution’s due process provisions are thus among the individual safeguards that protect the integrity of our sovereignty as a people. They prevent those who happen to wield government power from pretending that individuals who insist upon respect for their God-endowed rights are acting lawlessly.
Donald Trump’s purported aim is to exclude murderous Muslims from our midst. But because his policy for doing so disregards the just premises of our national sovereignty, it is in the line of his not-so-friendly fire. This would be unacceptable even if his proposed policy would effectively secure us from the Islamic terrorist threat. But it would not.
Terrorist personnel poised to do us harm are already ensconced within our borders. Trump’s proposal does nothing but loudly slam the door after the fact. For years, lax enforcement of our immigration laws and border security policies have allowed tens of millions of illegal entrants into our country. I have for many years been among those who pushed for the tough measures and enforcement policies required to seal our borders against this flow. During all that time, we pointed out that it is irrational to assume that this unmonitored flood does not include people being positioned to do us harm. I repeatedly made the point that illegal immigration is not a harmless jobs program. It is a threat to our national security. But leftist Democrats and their quisling counterparts in the GOP refused to listen.
This impels us to consider the likelihood that Trump’s proposal and the supposed brawl it has caused between him and the elitist faction establishment he consistently supported in the past is a mock combat, a distraction staged to keep Americans from asking the questions that are presently most urgent when it comes to our immediate security. These are questions like: How many Islamic terrorists have the Obama faction and their quisling fellow travelers in the GOP already allowed in? What further mayhem are such “sleeping dogs” likely to do? How can we identify and hold accountable the elected and other officials whose incompetence or treachery allowed their infiltration? How can we make sure that their malfeasance is at an end?
By creating a fracas that distracts from this question, Trump makes Muslims, as such, into convenient scapegoats. He takes the focus away from replacing the treacherous leadership, in both the so-called “major” political parties, that has kept our country on a path that fatally degrades the vigilance required to forestall the strategy of the terrorist war being waged against us. Holding them accountable for their actual policies is imperative if we are to restore that vigilance. But instead, Donald Trump’s proposal invites us to focus on the dangers from abroad we were once more than capable of defeating, while weakening the premises of liberty at home in precisely the way the terrorist strategy intends. Does this really seem like an appropriate result for the “outsider” candidate he is portrayed to be?
Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact [email protected].