Thread: Priebus: Trump not targeting Muslims on immigration

By GABBY MORRONGIELLO • 7/17/16 10:36 AM

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus claimed Sunday that Donald Trump's controversial ban on some immigrants would not include a religious test, despite Trump's previous calls for a "total and complete ban" on foreign-born Muslims seeking to enter the U.S.

"His position is a temporary ban on immigration from certain countries," Priebus told CNN's Jake Tapper. "There's no religious test on the table."

Trump himself has updated his earlier call, suggesting it applies to nations from which terrorism is emanating.

"It's simply limited to countries that are harboring terrorists and that's really where 75 percent of the American people are at," Priebus claimed.

Priebus declined to say whether Trump had "changed" his position on wanting to bar non-American Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. He instead suggested that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee has always intended to halt immigration from countries with terrorist ties as opposed to people of a certain religious background.

"That is his position. It is not a religious test. It is a ban on immigration from countries that harbor and train terrorists," he said. "That's what I believe in. That's what the American people believe in."

Nevertheless, Trump's original proposal could pass constitutional muster. The ban in the Constitution on religious tests applies to qualifications for public office, not to immigration.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pr...rticle/2596725

A ban on immigration from countries that support terrorism is as good as a ban on Muslims. You cannot ban Muslims themselves from immigration, that is a religious test and unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

A ban on immigration from countries that support terrorism is as good as a ban on Muslims. You cannot ban Muslims themselves from immigration, that is a religious test and unconstitutional.

We can ban religious groups from immigrating to the United States. There is no ban on religious tests or unconstitutional issue with that. So yes, we can ban Muslims, we can bans Hindus, we can ban Taliban, we can ban all types of religious groups from immigrating to the United States. We can ban all immigration of every kind from anywhere for any reason. In fact, that is the only power the federal government has under the US Constitution with regards to immigration: to prevent it, prohibit it, ban it, stop it. The federal government has no authority to admit even 1 immigrant under the US Constitution. So please do not create obligations like "no religious tests" for an activity the federal government has no constitutional authority to engage in to begin with.

Originally Posted by Judy

We can ban religious groups from immigrating to the United States. There is no ban on religious tests or unconstitutional issue with that. So yes, we can ban Muslims, we can bans Hindus, we can ban Taliban, we can ban all types of religious groups from immigrating to the United States. We can ban all immigration of every kind from anywhere for any reason. In fact, that is the only power the federal government has under the US Constitution with regards to immigration: to prevent it, prohibit it, ban it, stop it. The federal government has no authority to admit even 1 immigrant under the US Constitution. So please do not create obligations like "no religious tests" for an activity the federal government has no constitutional authority to engage in to begin with.

I like your argument, I'm not sure of its source. But I think it is clear that immigration itself is not a constitutional right. Constitutional rights and civil rights in general are the rights of US citizens and nobody else. And so it could very well follow that we could restrict immigration on the basis of religion. I don't think that is a good idea since one of the basis of our civil liberties is freedom of religion. It would be a moral, if not legal, contradiction to restrict immigration on the basis of religion.

For myself, I would be happy to restrict Muslims from immigration to the US, but I might have other religious restriction that I would like to see as well. No doubt I am not the only one with such opinions, justified or not.

US Constitution
Article I
Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...iclei#section9

Immigration is a states right, balanced by the federal government's authority after 1808 to prohibit it.

Admitting immigrants has never been a power of the federal government under the US Constitution, only preventing it.

Stop ALL of it for the next 20 years. We have NO obligation to take these people and pay for them out of OUR pockets!

Go help them on their soil...no more!!!

Originally Posted by Judy

US Constitution
Article I
Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...iclei#section9

Immigration is a states right, balanced by the federal government's authority after 1808 to prohibit it.

Admitting immigrants has never been a power of the federal government under the US Constitution, only preventing it.

Let me see if I got this right.

The article says that Congress cannot prohibit "migration or importation of ... persons ... prior to 1808" and this implies that after that date, they can prohibit it? That's it? That's not exactly a very affirmative declaration on that authority. Perhaps there is another section or context making that clear.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Let me see if I got this right.

The article says that Congress cannot prohibit "migration or importation of ... persons ... prior to 1808" and this implies that after that date, they can prohibit it? That's it? That's not exactly a very affirmative declaration on that authority. Perhaps there is another section or context making that clear.

The affirmative is that migration or importation of persons is a states right, but after 1808, the federal government can prohibit it. Those are the only references to the powers of immigration in the US Constitution. And that's clear enough for me and should be for any and everyone else. The federal government has never had the right to flood our country with labor to compete with American workers, people who can't sustain themselves who sign up for welfare, people who have different cultures, values and beliefs who create countries within our own. States decide and when they run overboard impacting themselves negatively and spreading the problem to other states, the federal government has the constitutional authority to stop that just as it has the authority to stop invasions by illegal aliens.

There is no constitutional authority anywhere in the US Constitution for the federal government to admit migrants of any type from anywhere for any reason. That's clear as a bell.

Originally Posted by Judy

The affirmative is that migration or importation of persons is a states right, but after 1808, the federal government can prohibit it.

I would rather say that migration or importation of persons is a states right until 1808, just to make that clear. After that date the federal government can prohibit it.

Originally Posted by Judy

Those are the only references to the powers of immigration in the US Constitution. And that's clear enough for me and should be for any and everyone else. The federal government has never had the right to flood our country with labor to compete with American workers, people who can't sustain themselves who sign up for welfare, people who have different cultures, values and beliefs who create countries within our own.

That's a moral obligation rather than a legal one, but it is enough to say that immigration policy is a national policy and the federal government has a moral and legal responsibility to restrict immigration. Immigration policy is by definition restrictive, immigration policy starts with making immigration the consequence of some legal permission based on eligibility and desirability. Maybe we want immigrants, maybe we don't. Immigration is not a civil right.

Originally Posted by Judy

States decide and when they run overboard impacting themselves negatively and spreading the problem to other states, the federal government has the constitutional authority to stop that just as it has the authority to stop invasions by illegal aliens.


There is no constitutional authority anywhere in the US Constitution for the federal government to admit migrants of any type from anywhere for any reason. That's clear as a bell.

I would say that states have no right to provide for immigration beyond what national policy is. Immigration is necessarily a national policy and states have no right to loosen immigration policy because otherwise they are imposing immigration policy on other states. I think states have the right to be more restrictive than national policy, but not less restrictive.


Immigration must be a national policy because you cannot restrict the movement of non-citizens across state borders. And if immigrants become citizens, then they become citizens of any state in the United States. If one state mints citizens based on poor standards of eligibility or poor motivations in general, then the state is imposing a state standard on all the other states.

How CNN Muzzled Victims’ Voices at Republican National Convention


AP Photo/Nick Ut

by JOEL B. POLLAK19 Jul 2016




CNN cut away from speakers who spoke out against illegal immigration at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on Monday night, turning instead to its daily stable of talking heads, and coming back for a conventional politician’s speech.

Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw, who each lost a child through crimes committed by illegal aliens, spoke from the heart about why they supported Donald Trump’s proposal to enforce immigration law and build a border wall.

Shaw, who is black, told the tearful audience in Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena “You’d think Obama cared, and black lives mattered … Only Trump called me on the phone one day to see how I was doing … Trump will put America first.”

But CNN, which lately fought to rebuild its audience by including more conservative perspectives, filtered out those voices, returning to the speeches in time for Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who gave a good but otherwise unremarkable address.

The network did carry the live speech of Pat Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith. But it bracketed her speech with fact-checking, suggesting that despite her feelings that Hillary Clinton was to blame, there was no direct link to the former Secretary of State. CNN’s fact-checker later labeled the claim that Clinton was responsible for the Benghazi deaths as “false.” (Jake Tapper did push back, pointing out that the argument was that Clinton was responsible for her entire department.)

The fact that victims of crimes by illegal aliens have largely been ignored is part of the secret of Trump’s success. When Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien — with multiple deportations and felony convictions — in San Francisco last July, it was Trump alone who took up the issue, and the cause of other bereaved families. That gesture helped propel him from the back of the Republican pack to the front.

But to see and hear the families of victims, you had to watch Breitbart or C-SPAN.

How CNN Muzzled Victims' Voices at Republican National Convention