Following President Trump’s executive order on immigration coming to a halt over the weekend, he is being urged to implement the requirement for refugees and immigrants to wear GPS tracking devices until a final decision on his order is reached in the courts.
John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School, told the Washington Examiner that the GPS tracking devices are “fully consistent” with the code Trump is using to enact his travel restrictions.
Banzhaf claimed that Trump can legally impose “any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” and GPS trackers are “more likely to be upheld since it is far less objectionable than a total ban.”
“There have now been several major terrorist incidents in which authorities pointed out that they were suspicious of the perpetrator, but did not have sufficient information to arrest him, nor the vast resources necessary to provide effective surveillance of everyone under suspicion. GPS systems incorporated in ankle bracelets permit one agent to track hundreds of suspects in real time, and provide computer generated alerts if he goes anywhere suspicious (e.g., near a nuclear power plant), meets with other persons likewise wearing ankle monitors,” said Banzhaf.
He tweeted this graphic in support of the GP tracking proposal.
— John Banzhaf (@ProfBanzhaf) February 6, 2017
Banzhaf also remarked that Germany adopted a similar method for refugees. It is reported Norway also plans to do the same.
The Daily Mail reports that Banzhaf has long maintained that Trump’s travel restrictions are legal.
Citing Title VIII, Section 1182, of US immigration law, the law professor said last August that the president could enact a ban if he wanted. “He doesn’t have to provide any reason for doing it. If Congress joins him, it makes it even stronger, more likely to be constitutional,” Banzhaf told Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon, who now serves as Trump’s chief strategist.
“Ordinary constitutional protections, primarily equal protection, do not apply to people who are not U.S. citizens, and who are trying to enter the country,” Banzhaf told Bannon. ‘This has been true for over a hundred years.
“Our Supreme Court has, time after time, turned away objections to restrictions based upon race, national origin, political belief, even under free speech grounds.”
Even if Trump said “no Muslims could come into the United States, that would be constitutional” because of the plenary power doctrine, Banzhaf told Breitbart in January.
‘This order is largely constitutional and probably will stand.”
H/T: Washington Examiner
Related News: Lawyers Argue Restoring Travel Ban Will “Unleash Chaos”
If you would like to receive Breaking News text alerts on a smartphone or tablet, download the DML APP which is completely FREE and easy to use. Go to the Google Play Store or the IOS App Store and search for DML APP. Be sure to keep the app’s notifications setting on. Another way to receive alerts is to text to 40404 the following message: follow @realdennislynch (be sure to put a space between the word follow and the @ symbol).
To see more stories like this, sign up below for Dennis Michael Lynch’s email newsletter.
Sign up to get breaking news alerts from Dennis Michael Lynch.