Thursday April 2, 2020
Home Uncategorized Trump’s...

Trump’s Muslim friends don’t support his immigration ban proposal

0
//

New York: Republican front-runner Donald Trump has said that while his Muslim friends do not support his proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States, they are glad the former has broached the issue of Islamic fundamentalism.

Trump made these remarks during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper which was aired on Sunday.

“I have many friends that are Muslims, and I will tell you, they are so happy that I did this because they know they have a problem,” Trump said.

When asked if they (Trump’s Muslim friends) support a ban on Muslims entering the US? Trump said, “No, they said it’s about time that somebody spoke up as to radicalism… You have radicalism in this country. It’s here, and it’s trying to come through.”

Emphasize his Muslim friends’ concern about terrorism, he said, “When my friends call me up, and they call me up very strongly, and they say — these are Muslims — and they say, ‘It’s something, Donald, that has to be talked about.”

“But they don’t support the ban?” the interviewer asked.

“Not really. I mean, why would they support the ban?” Trump replied, adding that “But without the ban, you’re not going to make the point. You’re not going to be able to make the point.”

“Again, my relationship with the Muslim community is excellent. I’ve had people call me at the highest level saying, ‘You’re doing us a favor’ because they know they have a problem very well. They really know they have a problem,” Trump said.

Trump’s proposal to ban the entry of Muslim in the US has drawn flak from various quarters.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even rejected “Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims.” Netanyahu’s statement apparently made Trump to cancel his planned trip to Israel.

When asked about Netanyahu condemnation, Trump said, “They’re not distancing themselves. I had a meeting with Natanyahu. I could be at the meeting right now.”

“He did (condemn my remarks), and that was sort of interesting. He modestly condemned them, and I thought it was sort of inappropriate that he condemned them, but that’s OK. He wanted to condemn them, that’s what he does. OK? But we have a problem,” Trump said.

“I’m not looking to be politically correct. I’m doing this to do the right thing. This and other things. When I say this — I’m running to do the right thing. I’m doing the right thing. Our country has a problem. People are in fear. They’re waiting for the next attack.”

Trump said he wished to discover from where this “total hatred” for the US was emanating and why.

“We want to find out what’s going on. Here’s what I want to ask: Why is there such hatred? Why is there such death? Where does this hatred come from?” Trump asked, adding, “I want to at least know where it’s coming from. Why is it happening? And it’s from a group of people. It’s from a specific group of people. OK? Why is there such total hatred?”

Next Story

Here’s What Can Happen if U.S. Declares Novel Coronavirus a National Emergency

The emergency measures raise constitutional questions

0
USA
Last year, Trump was criticized for declaring a national emergency in order to divert military funds to finance construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Pixabay

With the World Health Organization classifying the global coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump announced late Wednesday a series of emergency measures, including an unprecedented 30-day suspension of all flights from Europe.

But Trump, who spoke from the Oval Office, stopped short of resorting to an even more dramatic measure urged by some members of Congress: a national emergency proclamation under the 1976 National Emergencies Act.

The administration already has declared the coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency, giving local health officials greater flexibility to respond to the crisis.  A national emergency declaration would put a vast reservoir of additional powers at the president’s disposal by triggering sweeping authorities contained in more than 100 statutes, according to Elizabeth Goitein, director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty & National Security Program.

“When a president declares an emergency declaration, he at that moment has access to all of the laws that say in a national emergency the president can do X, whether or not those powers relate to the emergency at hand,” Goitein said.

Some of the additional authorities allow for a “reasonable and very measured” response to an emergency, according to Goitein. For example, hospitals could receive regulatory waivers in order to set up off-site facilities.

At the same time, a national emergency declaration also empowers a president to take draconian measures in the name of national security. For example, a president could invoke a 1941 law to shut down the internet and even freeze people’s bank accounts.

Last year, Trump was criticized for declaring a national emergency in order to divert military funds to finance construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

A national emergency declaration can only be overturned by an act of Congress.   More than 30 national emergency declarations made over the past four decades remain in effect.

Although presidents often have a legitimate need to exercise emergency powers, they’ve also faced criticism for using emergencies to curtail civil liberties and civil rights.

History of Mational Emergencies 

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln famously suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a guarantee against unlawful detentions. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt put more than 100,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps. And after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush expanded the government’s surveillance and other national security powers, some of which were later rolled back by Congress.

“The question will be in this moment, how far does the president go or the Congress go, and what is the fallout in the pushback,” said Kimberly Wehle, a visiting law professor at the American University Washington College of Law. “These are areas where the law isn’t clear.”

In addition to exercising emergency powers, the president has certain nonemergency powers he has used during the coronavirus crisis. For example, Trump invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 in suspending travel from Europe. Another non-emergency power Trump has exercised: the federal quarantine authority, which was last used in 1963.

“The president doesn’t have to declare an emergency in order to avail himself of that, but we know the president has already done that,” Goitein said.

Locking down communities or otherwise restricting the movements of large groups can conflict with constitutional rights of due process, according legal scholars.

“The due process clause basically says the government can’t restrict your liberty, which would be your ability to move around without some kind of process,” Wehle said. “That’s the first constitutional provision that will come to mind if we’re talking about quarantining people in their homes.”

As of Wednesday, 22 states representing 196 million Americans have declared some type of COVID-related emergency, according to James Hodge, director for public health law and policy, at Arizona State University.

Connection, Covid-19, Coronavirus, Virus, China
With the World Health Organization classifying the global coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump announced late Wednesday a series of emergency measures, including an unprecedented 30-day suspension of all flights from Europe. Pixabay

New York state on Tuesday created a “containment zone” around the town of New Rochelle, the epicenter of the outbreak in the state. Schools, places of worship and other large public spaces within 1.6 kilometers of the town of nearly 80,000 residents will shut down for next two weeks, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced.

An emergency declaration allows federal and state authorities to put in place a host of so-called “social distancing measures,” including restricting travel, imposing curfews, dismissing schools, restricting public gatherings and implementing quarantines.

ALSO READ: Upcoming Google Smartphone “Pixel 4a” May Launch With a Starting Price $399

The emergency measures raise constitutional questions. While quarantining individuals or groups suspected of exposure to COVID-19 is constitutional, creating “cordon sanitaire” or lockdown of groups of communities within or outside “hot zones,” is not, according to Hodge. (VOA)