Quote:There's a pretty thorough vetting process already in place, and there was one when Khan (and the owner of the Jags with the same name, BTW) emigrated to the U.S.  What the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not take into account when allowing legal immigration is the person's religion, because it's against the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. 

 

If he wanted to temporarily ban ALL immigration, that's another discussion, but Donald singled out "moose-lims".  Let everyone else in but them.

 

Which is why Mr. Khan held up his pocket constitution in the first place.

 

For documented immigrants, sort of. For undocumented immigrants (refugees from Somalia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc), no. Government security officials have confirmed this.

 

Also, Mr. Khan holding up the constitution as a defense against Trump's immigration policy was totally false.

 

One of the main criticisms of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration is that it’s unconstitutional. For example, Republican presidential candidate and law graduate Marco Rubio said that the plan “violates the Constitution” earlier this week.

 

However, two notable law professors — Jan C. Ting of Temple University and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago — say those critics are wrong and possibly don’t know much about legal history.

 

Ting, a professor at Temple University’s School of Law and a former Immigration and Naturalization Services commissioner for the Department of Justice, explained to The Daily Caller that Trump’s plan is in keeping with over a hundred years of legal precedent.

 

“No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional,” Ting told TheDC. “The U.S. government can exclude a foreign national on any basis.”

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/12/law-pr...itutional/

---