[** Export to PDF](/wp-admin/tools.php?ghostexport=true&submit=Download+Ghost+File&pdf=128)
This is an unplanned post since some loony leftist found his way into my mentions on twitter. That is not unusual since it happens on a daily basis or thereabouts, but this one was particularly loony since he declared that Donald Trump is “authoritarian” and would “imprison Muslims based on religion.” Obviously, neither of those things is correct, but it is the latter claim that stands out. I questioned his assertion, and he responded by linking to a video of “The Kyle Kulinski Show on Secular Talk Radio & TYT Network” ([Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7HN_qHmEw&feature=youtu.be)). I skipped to the part with Donald Trump speaking, listened to it, and he never said anything about imprisoning Muslims based on their religion. The loony leftist apparently thinks barring foreign Muslims from entering the country is “imprisoning Muslims” because some of them may hypothetically try to sneak into the US anyway and be detained for deportation.

It’s safe to say that the loony leftist in question is indeed a loony leftist. An illegal alien is detained because they are an illegal alien. Ali Akbar would be detained for trying to enter the US illegally regardless of what religion he professes. Trump’s proposed ban would prevent them from receiving visas to enter the country legally until such time that such immigration was deemed safe. After the attacks in Normandy, Nice, Paris, Cologne, and so on, this is not some insane policy proposal.

This post is not about that loony leftist, however, but rather about Kyle Kulinski from the video link above. In the video, he basically just rants that barring Muslims entry to the United States would be a violation of the First Amendment, implying that Donald Trump does not understand the legal system, just makes things up, and so on. Apparently, no one at The Kyle Kulinski Show bothers to do any sort of research on subjects before letting the host rant like a buffoon about things he doesn’t understand.

At issue is 8 US Code § 1182 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President, which states, “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” (Emphasis added).

That is and has been the law of the United States, which is exactly what Donald Trump was talking about in the video above. If the President decides that Muslims are a threat to the United States, he can declare that they cannot enter the country for any reason for any length of time. The law is very clear, and Trump was correct in how he described it. If Mr. Kulinski or someone working with him had bothered to research the subject at all, they would have discovered the law since the media has actually discussed this before regarding Trump’s proposed travel ban for foreign Muslims.

As for the First Amendment, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Barring Muslims from entering the United States would not be an establishment of state religion. We would still have citizens who were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so on. It also would not be any sort of prohibition on the free exercise of religion since “entering the United States at will” is not a doctrine of Islam, and foreigners outside of the United States are not protected by the US Constitution regardless. A Muslim in Saudi Arabia cannot claim a “First Amendment right” to enter our country, and it is cartoonishly idiotic when laid out in plain terms. The First Amendment does not say that we can never pass a law that may affect a religion at all, and it also does not say that a particular religion can force itself upon Americans from anywhere in the world.

A foreigner has no claim to rights of the American people, and there is no “right to enter the US” just because some foreigners wish to do so. We could bar anyone from entering the country, or we could single out certain nations or peoples. In fact, that is precisely what the men who founded the nation did with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalized citizenship to white people. That remained unchanged until 1870, and it was not fully overturned until the 20th century. The Founders could have just as easily limited naturalized citizenship to Christians, which still would not have been an established state religion because they recognized numerous denominations as being separate. The true purpose of the First Amendment was to avoid a single denomination from coming to power and exerting control over all others, which is what had been the status quo in the early colonies as well as Britain. They had seen religious strife in the colonies, and they also knew of the many conflicts back across the pond where Catholics and Anglicans had squared off. The Founders were not protecting Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism at a time when they were virtually nonexistent, but they were rather trying to avoid Christian-on-Christian conflict arising from abuses of state power.

The moral of this story is that one should research a topic before going on-air to do a bad impression of Donald Trump while claiming he, his advisers, and, by extension, his supporters are all idiots.