US President actually can legally bar any group from entering the US

[Deleted]

Saw this interesting post:

Re: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

... a President Trump could indeed prohibit Muslim immigrants from entering the US based on this law.

(*) 8 USC § 1182(f) gives the President plenary power to decide who is admissible as an immigrant. He can prohibit from entering into the country Muslims, people with green eyes, everyone with one arm, or all women other than those single, 18-30, and with Victoria's Secret model-worthy bodies (As an American, I, for one, believe this last criteria should be imposed immediately). No executive order or new legislation needed.

US immigration law has at in the past banned anarchists. It still bans Communists and polygamists. (The law also gives the government discretion to exempt individuals from general bans, so if a President Trump decides that an Islamic Mayor of London is worthy of admission to the US, he could enter.) The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned."

And before armchair non-lawyers object:
-- "The First Amendment bans discrimination by religion!" Not for non-US citizens outside US jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the US Constitution is Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to…establish a uniform rule of naturalization…[And] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Maintaining its borders as it sees fit is one of the fundamental rights, and obligations, of any sovereign state.
If you think that the US Constitution protects all non-US citizen/residents anywhere, I look forward to your advocating the US invading every country on earth that does not protect freedom of speech, religion, and assembly with US-like standards. (Or the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms.)

-- "Such a ban would be unprecedented!" No. As I noted, there is precedent. As mentioned, the law in question already prohibits the admission of—among other undesirables—Communists, despite the Communist Party being legal in the US under the First Amendment.
"I/my friend/anyone affected by the law will sue!" Only someone with standing could sue or ask for an injunction. Immigration law by definition does not affect US citizens.
US State Department consulate staff already have the ability to grant, or revoke, visas—including already granted ones—for any reason, and there is no right to challenge the decision. The principle of consular nonreviewability is another example of the plenary power Congress has granted the executive branch in regards to immigration, and related to the lack of standing. Can you imagine the chaos if every single non-US citizen rejected for a US visa could seek relief in the US court system? If every single non-US citizen ineligible to apply for a visa for whatever reason could do so?

-- "Such a ban would be un-American!" Nowhere have I stated my personal opinion of the ethics of Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigrants or visitors; I am only discussing the legality and constitutionality of any such ban. That said, there is nothing inherently "wrong" or "un-American" about a religion-based prohibition on immigration. There is no great controversy over the system today using national origin, familial status, and age as criteria for deciding whether to admit visitors and immigrants, despite all three being protected classes in US law; religion would merely be another such. Let me repeat: The operative constitutional principle here is Article I Section 8, not the First Amendment. There is nothing inherently about the latter that gives it higher standing, either legally or morally, than the former.

Source.

(*) 8 USC § 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.

[May90]

Well, isn't that sweet.

By the way, has the Internet in Australia gotten better? Puuuuuuure curiosity!

[Ayla]

Well, isn't that sweet.

By the way, has the Internet in Australia gotten better? Puuuuuuure curiosity!

Apparently their whole country just moved 6 feet north, that has to be worth something in Internet power.

[Tempguy]

It still bans Communists and polygamists.

Why are we apparently okay with this, but banning people from nations who support terrorism (until we can properly screen them) is supposedly super evil?

[May90]

Apparently their whole country just moved 6 feet north, that has to be worth something in Internet power.

Yaaaay, lower delay on EU/NA servers then!
*packs bags*

[Jaylock]

It will be good when Trump finally stops all immigration to the US so we can fix the illegal immigration problem and build a wall. Once we attack the root of the problem, I have no problem opening up the borders for people who want to LEGALLY come to the United States. After all, the US is the free'est nation on the planet and I welcome anyone who wants to come enjoy that freedom and opportunity in a legal way.

[Kraenen]

The point about being a US citizen seems moot anyway if it's true you don't have to make a law for this, as the amendment only prohibits new laws from being made.

[Deleted]

It will be good when Trump finally stops all immigration to the US so we can fix the illegal immigration problem and build a wall. Once we attack the root of the problem, I have no problem opening up the borders for people who want to LEGALLY come to the United States. After all, the US is the free'est nation on the planet and I welcome anyone who wants to come enjoy that freedom and opportunity in a legal way.

[Xeones]

Why are we apparently okay with this, but banning people from nations who support terrorism (until we can properly screen them) is supposedly super evil?

Who has proposed that?

[Justpassing]

Even if there wasn't a law about it Trump woulda made it so anyway so shrug.

[Damajin]

Hahahahahahahaha.

Look at the usual let everyone in suspects squirm around this, pretty amusing. I saw this discussed several places earlier and laughed.

In before lock of course, since this is one of those inconvenient bits of knowledge.

[Macaquerie]

I'm not okay with banning communists and polygamists.

Regardless, you're talking about banning specific individuals for their personal views, as opposed to banning everyone from a particular country regardless of personal merit.

My father managed to immigrate to the US despite being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, and so you can you!

"Are you a Communist?"
"No."
"Okie dokie, welcome to America!"

[Actarius]

I vote to ban all people from Pitcairn. I have more cousins than people in that country. I don't trust them... >.>

[May90]

Imagine this: Clinton becomes the president and bans Trump from entering the US. Oops!

[GreenJesus]

So banning people from countries we are at war with isn't PC?? lul okay. Recently Trump made sure to point out he didn't mean all muslims but those that are from countries we are at war with or where ISIS holds significant influence. I don't understand how this isn't a fair point of view. At least we aren't putting them in internment camps (like the Japanese in WWII). No matter how much you spray sparkles on muslims they don't fit in our country's system and they seek to turn our country back another 500 years to sharia law and forcing females to wear burkas and unable to get jobs or leave the house, only their "special snowflake" meat I forget what its called, banning alchohol and stoning of gay people. That is the culture you want to bring to the US.

[Damajin]

Imagine this: Clinton becomes the president and bans Trump from entering the US. Oops!

Imagine this: the whole deal only affects non citizens.

Oops.

[Stacyrect]

Imagine this: Clinton becomes the president and bans Trump from entering the US. Oops!

Imagine this: You can't ban US citizens

[Machismo]

It will be good when Trump finally stops all immigration to the US so we can fix the illegal immigration problem and build a wall. Once we attack the root of the problem, I have no problem opening up the borders for people who want to LEGALLY come to the United States. After all, the US is the free'est nation on the planet and I welcome anyone who wants to come enjoy that freedom and opportunity in a legal way.

It's not the most free nation on the planet, and you just demonstrated why. You are pushing for less freedom, not more.

[Theinquisition]

Well duh.

Jimmah Carter did the same thing during his administration by banning Iranians from entering the country.

I'm all for restricting immigration from nations where islam is the predominate religion. Maintain economic and diplomatic ties, just no entry. Good fences make for good neighbors. I personally feel that our cultures are just too far removed to allow for mass migration.

[Sky High]

alright, doesn't change my mind on thinking he shouldn't be president, go figure.