The problem I have with a "ban" on Muslim immigration is it violates the first amendment.
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.
How do you legally restrict Muslim immigration without congress making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
A good question. I replied:
Right now there are laws in effect, I believe (at least they were a few years back), giving Jews a special right to enter the US from Russia. That seems to have been constitutional. It would seem that when dealing with foreign countries or foreign individuals, we routinely take religion into account for formulating policy. And, logically, if you prohibit the entry of Muslims, or Shintoists, or whatever, you're not doing anything with regard to an establishment of religion (making a religion an official religion of the state), nor are you saying that these people can't freely exercise their religion. They just can't enter the country. And, of course, you can easily argue that the tenets of Islam make it incompatible with the American system. Finally, despite all of that, it's clearly cultural suicide to allow Muslim immigration, so any interpretation of the law that would require us to is self-destructive.
Since answering him, I've looked up the law I referred to, and it's the Lautenberg Amendment [link], which gave special immigration status to both Jews and evangelical Christians. And thinking about the difference between that First Amendment's application to Americans versus foreigners and foreign countries, I came up with a couple other thoughts. First, we give aid to Israel and of course have diplomatic relations with it. Since Israeli law gives Jews a special status above all others, most especially with regard to immigration (any Jew on Earth has a right to immigrate to Israel, and no non-Jew does, unless married to a Jew), by the logic of the universal application of the Amendment, we should have no diplomatic relationship with Israel or send them aid (taxing Americans to give money to a single religious group). In fact, we should probably declare war on them to force them to change their own laws.
And this applies to any country that has policies in violation of our First Amendment. Vatican City, of course. Any country with an established church, like the UK. And what with emperor-worship and all, you can make a constitutional case for immediate war with Japan.
So if a "Muslim ban," or even a feeble version of it, is impossible because of the U. S. Constitution, so is practically every other manifestation of American foreign policy.
And, that's leaving out entirely the question of at what point a religion requires the implementation of a political system that may or not be clearly inimical to allegiance to the United States. Insofar as sharia law is integral to Islam, you can certainly make a case for Islam and the American system being incompatible. As the second quibcag indicates, it can be argued that Islam isn't just a religion, but a blueprint for an entire reorganization of society, calling for laws and principles in complete opposition to American law and tradition, including that First Amendment.
And as for whether we should have some kind of Muslim ban, never mind the constitutionality of it all, this if from VDare [link], called to my attention by the indispensable Nicholas Stix [link]:
To read the original, with videos and illustrations, go to:
On Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tells The GOP They Need To LISTEN To Trump Voters On Immigration