I must have missed the beginning of this constitutional argument. The objection to Trump's muslim ban could be on First Amendment or Equal Protection grounds. Neither would be very persuasive in my opinion, but then I have searched the Constitution diligently and I can't find a right to an abortion or gay marriage either.
Foreigners seeking to enter the country have no constitutional rights, period. In the unlikely event they are detained by Border Control, then they do have certain rights, chiefly to due process. Their right to practice their religion would not be infringed in any event, only their right to immigrate here. Congress has plenary power over immigration and naturalization, and there has never been a precedent restricting that on Equal Protection or other grounds.
Whether congress could ban the practice of islam in the United States is a nice question. It would turn on whether islam is a religion under the First Amendment or is it something else, eg more akin to communism. Congress passed a law banning membership in the Communist Party and the Supreme Court never overturned it. Political affiliation is also a First Amendment freedom, so these rights are not absolute.
The Supreme Court approved FDR's internment of Japanese Americans during WW II. A similar decision seems unlikely now, but a few terrorist attacks could change that.
) they found launch rockets ( to blow planes), bomb equipments, etc. This highlighting a few questions : what the hell had the police been doing all this time?
. So here, you'd better off finding out why they can't be vetted properly: deal with the roots and not the symptoms only. 
