This is apropos a letter to the Editor carried by the newspaper yesterday. Let me add that Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration, particularly his demonization of migrants and minorities, represents a significant deviation from the core principles of the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause guarantees that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By broadly labeling immigrants as “rapists” or “animals,” Trump undermines this constitutional mandate, promoting discrimination based on nationality and ethnicity.
His language, which paints entire groups of people as inherently criminal, conflicts with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which requires that laws and policies must not unfairly target specific groups without justification.
The 5th and 14th Amendments also enshrine the right to due process, stating that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Trump’s proposals for mass deportations and the construction of detention camps raise serious concerns about violating due process.
Historically, due process has been interpreted to mean that all individuals, including immigrants, must be given a fair hearing before being subjected to punitive measures such as deportation.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that even non-citizens are entitled to procedural fairness under the Constitution. Additionally, Trump’s rhetoric around the Muslim travel ban and his discriminatory remarks about Mexican immigrants contradict the First Amendment, which protects religious freedom.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring a particular religion, as emphasized in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993), where the Court ruled that laws targeting specific religious practices are unconstitutional.
Trump’s Muslim ban, justified through rhetoric that broadly frames Muslims as potential terrorists, flies in the face of this protection and has been widely criticized as unconstitutional.
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments