Trump calls for barring all Muslims from entering U.S. (updated)

They noted that in the past, when norms and standards were different, the United States did have a similar policy on the books. Thus, in the early twentieth century, the United States imposed strict quotas on foreign arrivals, culminating in the immigration acts of 1917 and 1924. The acts would not allow visas for anyone residing in what was designated as the “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which included most of the Muslim world, stretching from the Arabian Peninsula to Indonesia. These quotas were lifted by the Immigration Act of 1965.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University expert on constitutional law, told the Post that such a ban “would not only violate international law but do so by embracing open discrimination against one religion. It would make the United States a virtual pariah among nations.’’

“This is just so antithetical to the history of the United States,” said Nancy Morawetz, a professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law, who specializes in immigration, told the New York Times. “It’s unbelievable to have a religious test for admission into the country.”

She added: “I cannot recall any historical precedent for denying immigration based on religion.”

Morawetz said that the United States has long regretted policies that banned the immigration of Chinese at the end of nineteenth century. “It’s a very sad chapter in American immigration history that we would think is behind us today.”

Trump has a record of intemperate statements on the issue of the United States and Muslims. He has called for the government to monitor mosques, and has refused to back down from his earlier proposal to create a special database which will include the names of all Muslim Americans – and have Muslim Americans’ religion noted on their identity documents (he did not specify which ones). Trump, who was leading “birther” — claiming that President Obama was not born in the United States – has also made several cryptic and conspiratorial comments about how Obama was conducting the war against ISIS,  hinting that there was “something going on” with Obama and ISIS that Americans should, but were not, aware of.

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the Post: “Oh, my goodness. One has to wonder what Donald Trump will say next as he ramps up his anti-Muslim bigotry. Where is there left for him to go? Are we talking internment camps? Are we talking the final solution to the Muslim question? I feel like I’m back in the 1930s.”

Hooper said he was especially worried about the premeditated nature of Trump’s statement.

“He feels perfectly okay saying this,” said Hooper. “It’s not an open mic moment, where he has to walk something back. This was a statement from his campaign. They had to believe that this would be well received by his supporters. We’ve always had anti-Muslim bigots, but they’ve always been at the fringes of society. Now they want to lead it. In saner times, his campaign would be over. In insane times, his campaign can gain support. And that’s why he put it out.”

“Rooting our nation’s immigration policy in religious bigotry and discrimination will not make America great again,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, executive director of Interfaith Alliance, referring to Trump’s campaign slogan.

Putting the policy into practice would require an unlikely act of Congress, Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of law at Cornell and a prominent authority on immigration, told the Times. Should Congress enact such a law, he predicted, the Supreme Court would invalidate it as an overly restrictive immigration policy under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

“It would certainly be challenged as unconstitutional,” he said. “And I predict the Supreme Court would strike it down.”