Nope, there is just nothing in there that would prevent us from creating immigration laws based upon a religion that is a threat to the citizens actually protected by the constitution.

Legitimate cause: Muslims commit terrorist acts at a rate much higher than any other group of the population. Perhaps with the rise of ISIS, a moratorium on Islamic immigration would be a sound idea until they are defeated. Therefore, it would make sense to limit immigration from Muslim nations.

Right. So we have a Muslim population just over 3 million now and it causes problems vastly disproportionate to its number, so why increase the population size? There’s no benefit we gain from Muslim immigration.

How would a law that doesn’t affect a Muslim citizen’s right to practice his or her religion be in violation of the first amendment?

You understand that the Constitution deals with the United States and its citizens and that the 1st Amendment has zero to do with immigration policy correct?

Except when it comes to foreign terrorism against western culture, Islam is the main culprit. We can’t stop the fact that we have some crazies of our own, but we can limit the outside influence of others.

Sigh. The “core facet” of freedom of religion (I assume this is what you mean) is for people who are actually citizens. It has nothing to do with who we allow in. We’ve had limits on immigration before based on a variety of things. Do you think we honestly had an open doors policy to the USSR?

“The only reason Trump has been allowed to get this far is the fawning deference he’s cultivated among the famous and influential—folks like Tom Brady.”

Alternatively, this could be titled “American Elite Astounded by Politician Who Acts in Best Interest of American Citizens”.