Paul Ryan On Stopping A President Trump's Muslim Ban: We'll Sue Him!
ByTIERNEY SNEED
PublishedJUNE 17, 2016, 10:02 AM EDT
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has made clear he doesn't agree with a proposal put forward by Donald Trump -- whom Ryan has endorsed -- to ban Muslim immigration into the United States, but in an interview with the Huffington Post Thursday, Ryan floated taking a President Trump to court if he tried to implement such a ban or some of his other controversial proposals unilaterally.
“I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” Ryan said in a back-and-forth about Trump's claims that he could implement a Muslim ban or build a Mexican border wall without congressional approval.
Ryan said he wasn't sure of the "legal question" of whether Trump could institute a Muslim ban on his own as president.
“That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about,” he said, citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
"On the broader question, are we going to exert our Article I powers and reclaim this Article I power no matter who the president is? Absolutely," Ryan said. He also said he discussed the limits of the executive power with Trump.
In the interview, Ryan said his endorsement of real estate mogul did not give Trump “a blank check,” and that he was still trying to achieve "real unity" between the presumptive nominee and his caucus.
"I am going to keep being who I am, I am going to keep speaking out on things where I think it's needed, where our principles need to be defended, and I am going to keep doing that, I hope it's not necessary," Ryan said. "But the last thing I want to see is a another Democrat in the White House"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...muslim-ban-sue
RYAN CONFUSED BY GREAT IMMIGRATION DEBATE
Threat to sue Trump over Muslim ban not supported by law or history
Published: 2 hours ago
Garth Kant
WASHINGTON – It takes a list to count all the ways House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., seems to misunderstand the hottest immigration debate in the country.
As WND is reporting, Ryan said, “I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” when discussing with the left-leaning Huffington Post what the website described as GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s “proposed Muslim ban.”
However:
The ban would not exceed the president’s authority, by law.
Even Obama has done it.
The past six presidents have done it.
Trump is not calling for a ban on Muslims; he is calling for a pause in immigration from areas with a proven history of terrorism.
A ban on refugees based on their religion would not be illegal, and is specifically authorized in federal law.
Doesn’t exceed authority
Federal law explicitly gives the president the power and authority to ban various classes of immigrants, as the Daily Caller pointed out Thursday.
The paper reported, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
In plain language, if the president believes a certain class of people represent a threat to the United States, he can ban them for as long as he likes. And he could do it without Congress. And Congress would have no basis upon which to sue him. All the president would need to do would be to issue a proclamation.
Obama has done it
President Obama has used his authority under this statute not once, not twice, but six times.
As the Daily Caller recounted, in July 2011, Obama invoked his authority under federal law to block the entry of “anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”
And, in April 2012, he barred the entry of anyone “facilitating computer or network disruption that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of Iran and Syria; anyone who have sold or provided goods, services, or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used for such purposes; or to have materially assisted anyone whose property or interests are described.”
The past 6 presidents have done it
The paper reported that George W. Bush also invoked the same authority six times, signing an order in 2004 “barring entry for public officials who solicit or accept bribes in exchange for any act or omission in their public duties that has serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; anyone who provides or offers to provide such a bribe; any current or former public official whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with public processes has had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; or the immediate families.”
Bill Clinton also did it six times. That included a 1994 order “barring entry for members of the Haitian military, their immediate families, any major participants in the coup d’état of 1991.”
George H.W. Bush used it once, and Ronald Reagan invoked it five times, including a September 1981 order barring “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas.”
The most interesting example was that of Jimmy Carter, because his order is similar to Trump’s proposal, and for similar reasons. During the Iran hostage crisis in 1980, Carter canceled “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.”
Trump not calling for Muslim ban
Trump did push a temporary ban, or pause, in Muslim immigration after the horrific terror attacks in San Bernardino, California, in December, calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” he said at the time.
But, in a major speech on Monday renewing his call for an immigration moratorium, the GOP presidential candidate refined his proposal.
There was no mention of banning Muslims. Instead, he proposed banning immigrants from what could arguably called the worst places on Earth.
As WND reported, Trump vowed, “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we fully understand how to end these threats.”
Refugees ban based on religion not illegal
Even if a ban were placed on refugees because of their religion, it would not be illegal.
In fact, as legal scholar Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, federal law requires a religious test of immigrants seeking asylum. That is, the law requires religion be taken into account when considering the factors that determine whether a refugee should be admitted into the United States.
In November, McCarthy wrote in National Review:
“Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission:
must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
“Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a ‘refugee’ as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title 8, U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:
“The term ‘refugee’ means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]”
President Obama wants to import at least 10,000 refugees from the civil war in Syria, and presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has proposed letting in hundreds of thousands more, with no end in sight.
Obama is on pace to grant permanent residency status to more than one million immigrants from Muslim-majority countries during his presidency.
Trump’s plan
The GOP presidential candidate seemed very familiar with the federal law giving the president the power to institute an immigration ban on whomever he decreed it necessary.
Trump described in his speech Monday what would give him the authority to establish the ban:
“The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons. Any class, to be determined by the president, for the interests of the United States. And it’s as he or she deems appropriate. Hopefully, it’s he, in this case.”
Trump explained what would follow the ban.
“After a full and long-overdue security assessment, we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America. We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom, have the same thought process as this savage killer. Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions,” he said.
“Remember this,” said Trump pointedly, “radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.”
“I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people, are targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.”
Just as important as the ban, said Trump, was the need to be straight with the American people.
“We need to tell the truth about how radical Islam is coming to our shores. And it’s coming. With these people, folks, it’s coming. We’re importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system and through an intelligence community held back by our president.”
On Fox News Monday, Trump said that letting in untold numbers of immigrants from countries such as Syria “could be the all-time great Trojan horse.”
While recognizing the terrorist who killed 49 people at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando was a U.S. citizen, Trump warned in a statement:
“Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.”
And, on CBS Monday morning, Trump said his proposed pause in immigration was needed because, once refugees arrived in America, “They’re becoming radicalized by people coming in and they’re also becoming radicalized by family members and others. ”
“You saw that with San Bernardino, where we had somebody in the country – he became probably radicalized through her when he married.”
Trump warned that Muslim communities in America protect the potential terrorists in their midst, such as the Orlando killer, Omar Mateen.
“They don’t report these people. The people know who the bad apples are, where the bad seeds are. And they don’t report them,” he said. “You’ll find out shortly, you’ll find out that many people knew that he was bad. Many people knew he had some kind of an idea for an attack. It happens all the time. Almost all the time. We need much better intelligence.”
Trump winning immigration ban debate
As WND reported on Wednesday, Trump suddenly seems to be winning the debate over the immigration ban.
Half of all Americans now support a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States, according to a Reuters poll.
The stunning results represent an enormous sea change in public opinion that seemingly took place overnight in the wake of the Orlando massacre.
The question was posed this way: “Agree/Disagree: The United States should temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States.”
Before Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded dozens more at an Orlando nightclub early Sunday morning, just 43 percent of Americans supported the ban and 53 percent opposed it.
http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/06/reu...052016-600.jpg
By Tuesday, the Reuters poll showed 50 percent now agree that the “United States should temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States.” Just 42 percent oppose the ban.
http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/06/reu...142016-600.jpg
On Monday, following the massacre, Trump renewed his call for a temporary ban against immigrants from global trouble spots.
He was severely criticized by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and much of the national news media.
But Trump seems to be wining the argument in the minds of the American people, as evidenced by the sudden and dramatic increase in support for his position.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/ryan-conf...ration-debate/
