monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

It doesn’t matter, by the way, whether the Muslims in question are citizens or noncitizens, green card holders, visa holders or refugees. The Equal Protection Clause explicitly prohibits “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court made this clear in Plyler v. Doe, when it protected the rights of non-citizen children in Texas, striking down a denial of school funds to the children of undocumented parents. This means that all foreign travelers on U.S. soil—those waiting at U.S. airports, for example—are protected.

More than that, I’d argue that even Muslims not on U.S. soil are protected. Recent case law suggests that no act by a government official—no matter to whom it applies—can be based on disapproval of a race, ethnicity or religion. In other words, when it comes to Equal Protection, it’s the motive of the government and its agents that matters. If a government official seeks to carry out Trump’s order and bar entry into the country, that is a violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

There are those who argue that the president’s powers when it comes to immigration are quite broad, and thus a degree of discrimination when it comes to enforcing U.S. borders is legal. In this respect, supporters of Trump’s travel ban have important case law on their side. In Chae Chan Ping vs. The United States, handed down in 1889, the court held that the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited Chinese nationals, including former U.S. residents, from entering the country, did not violate the Constitution because the power of Congress and the president over immigration is plenary or absolute.

But use of the Chae Chan Ping precedent is problematic. For one, it concerned an act of Congress, signed by the president. This entails a higher level of federal power than when the executive acts alone, thus the courts are more likely to defer to it than they are to a single executive action. More importantly, though, the case occurred well before the development of contemporary Equal Protection law.

"There are a lot of killers. We got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country's so innocent?" the president responded.

Trump's unexplained defense of Russia, which has he sustained since the campaign, continued to stump some lawmakers who appeared on network news shows Sunday.

"I'll be honest, I don't know what the president is trying to do with statements like these," Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NY) said on ABC's "This Week."

The Nebraska senator then described the rights provided by the First Amendment, making it clear that Putin and Russia's government do not provide those freedoms to its citizens.

"There is no moral equivalency between the United States of America — the greatest freedom loving nation in the history of the world — and the murderous thugs that are in Putin's defense of his cronyism," Sasse added.

On CNN's "State of the Union," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shared Sasse's view of Russia, though he refused to criticize the president for his conflation of the United States and an authoritarian regime.

"Well, Putin is a former KGB," McConnell said. "He's an agent. He's a thug. He was not elected in a way that most people would consider a credible election. The Russians annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine, and messed around in our elections. No, I don't think there is any equivalency between the way the Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does."

The dismissal of a moral equivalency went beyond television appearances, as a number of noteworthy Republicans sounded off on Twitter.

America has been a beacon of light and freedom. There is no equivalence with the brutal regime of Vladimir Putin.
— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) February 5, 2017

.@POTUS statement suggesting moral equivalence between Putin's Russia and the United States of America is deeply troubling and wrong.
— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) February 5, 2017

When has a Democratic political activists been poisoned by the GOP, or vice versa? We are not the same as #Putin. MR
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 5, 2017

we would obviously just be demonstrating our totalitarian desire to control the conversation.

Don't you kids know there is chili to eat and a history making superbowl game to watch?

in most cases and knows nuttin about the stuff.

The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to 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.

The order prioritizes Christian refugees

Quote:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to 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.

And there's nothing per se wrong with prioritizing those suffering from "religious" persecution. German jews in 1938, for example.

I'm really not an expert in US (constitutional) law.
But personally, I don't have a lot of respect for those - in any country! - who are which each action testing the constitution, and, when failing, make personal attacks on a judge, on judges, or the court system at all. Such seems to indicate that these persons want to act against the respective constitution.

layman wrote:

And there's nothing per se wrong with prioritizing those suffering from "religious" persecution. German jews in 1938, for example.

Oh, you are referring to the MS St. Louis:
its captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for over 900 Jewish refugees from Germany. They were denied entry to the United States, about a quarter of them died as the result of this in death camps during World War II.

Traditionally, courts have refused to rule on such issues since they were outside the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. I'll get you a citation from another thread after I post this.

Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. It held that "...the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."