CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): We asked you for questions for the panel, and we got this on Facebook from John Plus Mary. They write, “why is it okay for a Democrat named Jimmy Carter to stop Iranians, aka Muslims, from coming into our country? And why are they attacking Trump for trying to keep our country safe?” Chuck, how do you answer John Plus Mary?
CHARLES LANE: Well, I would say that it's comparing apples and oranges. First of all, it's true, the immigration law gives the president very broad authority to -
WALLACE: Let me just quickly say, the immediate reaction from a lot of Republicans and Democrats: unconstitutional. A lot of learned scholars this week said, maybe not.
LANE: No, no, hold on a second. The immigration law gives the president very broad authority to ban this or that category of people from coming into the country, okay? But that power, like many others, can be abused. And what Donald Trump is proposing to do is to abuse that power grossly. And the contrast with Carter is very stark. Carter picked a nationality, a particular category of people who carry a certain passport, very easy to identify. And by the way he included a humanitarian exception, implying that people who were legitimate refugees from that regime could still enter the United States. Donald Trump said total and complete ban. It would be as if Carter, in response to the revolution and the hostage-taking in Iran had said, "I'm banning all Shia Muslims, because the Ayatollah Khomeiniis the head of the Shia movement in the United States, regardless of whether they come from Iran or not. And so, I know this is out there, people are saying well, it was okay for Jimmy Carter,this is media bias. But the two cases couldn't be more different. And, you know, in fact the contrast illustrates how poorly thought out and how overbroad the Trump proposal was.
