Posted on 05/24/2016 2:54:22 PM PDT by Rennes Templar
(Freedom.news) Despite the fact that presidents generally have the authority to ban anyone from entering the U.S., for a host of reasons, a group of Democratic lawmakers wants to change that authority in a bid to preempt a President Donald Trump from doing what he thinks is best for U.S. national security.
On the campaign trail Trump has called for a temporary ban on admitting anyone from Muslim-dominated countries with known terrorist entities at least until U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security officials find a way to properly vet these individuals. In the case of Syria, for example, the government is nearly non-functional, so there are no official sources for U.S. investigators to utilize when trying to vet Syrian refugees and migrants. The same is true of Libya, which is practically a failed state.
Nevertheless, as reported by AMI Newire, a band of Democratic congressmen on Wednesday fired back at anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States by announcing new legislation to protect Muslim immigrants.
The Freedom of Religion Act would ban religious litmus tests that could prevent immigrants and refugees from entering the U.S.
Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.), Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), Mike Honda (D-Calif.), André Carson (D-Ind.) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) introduced the legislation on Wednesday, with a powerful cosponsor – House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The four primary sponsors last banded together in December on legislation condemning anti-Muslim bigotry.
“For over 400 years, people have flocked to our shores in search of religious freedom,” Beyer said. “America has always been a country that welcomes people from all faiths.”
Carson said the idea of a religious litmus test would “betray our nation’s core values.”
“Blocking immigrants because of their religion would send a demoralizing and dangerous message to the world that the United States is no longer a beacon of freedom,” he said. “This critical legislation signals that the United States has always been, and will continue to be, a country that welcomes people of all races, ethnicities, and religions.”
Wednesday’s announcement was a not-so-thinly-veiled reaction to presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who sparked a firestorm in December by suggesting banning Muslims from entering the United States. Trump made the remark after terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, that were either inspired or carried out by Islamic State militants.
“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,” Trump said in a statement at the time.
Far from apologizing or dialing down his rhetoric, Trump has doubled down in recent speeches and interviews. He has renewed his call for the Muslim ban, and only stepped back slightly this week by suggesting that he may appoint former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head a commission to study the idea.
At almost the same time as Wednesday’s press conference, Trump got some high-profile help from billionaire energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens at the SkyBridge Alternatives global-investment conference in Las Vegas.
Pickens said he not only supported Trump for president, but his call for a Muslim immigrant ban as well. “I like his immigration policy. I didn’t say it’s permanent. But I’d cut off the Muslims coming into the United States until we can vet these people … We’ve got to know.”
About 30 organizations have announced support for the bill announced Wednesday, including a number of Jewish organizations as well as the Anti-Defamation League. But opposition is likely from conservative groups allied with Trump. Indeed, an audience at a South Carolina rally loudly cheered the idea when Trump appeared a day after proposing his Muslim ban; a Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent lauded him for “bravery.”
Beyer is leading the charge for the measure. In a “Dear Colleague” letter to House members on Tuesday, he referred to “the current political discourse surrounding the issue of religious-based acceptance into the U.S.,” and noted that the idea behind the bill is enshrined in Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
“(The Constitution) bans religious litmus tests for Americans who seek or hold higher office, and the opening phrase of the Bill of Rights bans both the establishment of a national religion and limitations on the free exercise of religion,” Beyer wrote. “The Founding Fathers could hardly have been more clear in expressing their desire to make America a tolerant nation, and yet we are faced with a political atmosphere in which political candidates, pandering to fear and prejudice, have proposed introducing religious litmus tests to our immigration system.”
Beyer also observed that Trump’s proposal could even potentially ban world leaders from entering the U.S., as well as scientific or business leaders who may be visiting U.S. shores for business or political purposes – but any reasonable person knows that a President Trump would never do that. His proposal is specific to the national security needs of the country. That he identified radical Islam as problematic may have bruised some feelings, but as president his first obligation is to protect the country. That hardly seems debatable.
This effort also smacks of hypocrisy. Democrats who are working in Congress and around the country to deny Christians religious freedom rights now want us to believe they are protectors of religious rights?
He can damn sure stop the immigration of them....
We all know Trump wasn’t your favorite candidate, but you need to decide what is more important...
Your favorite candidate or our country....
Now just wait a second... Democrats tell us that immigration enforcement is the exclusive right of the Obama executive branch. Are they admitting that Congress has control over immigration enforcement???
that is like saying trench warfare is the way to win every war. how dare you. must be a demokkkrat.
-—Why haven’t GOP lawmakers done the same to try to curb Obama’s initiatives?
.
.
.
Because GOP lawmakers only introduce bills when the dems have the senate, thus they can complain and moan and raise funds on the fact that the dems won’t let the bill be introduced.
Give the GOP the senate, and they sit on their hands and do nothing but rubber stamp Obama executive orders and name libraries, schools and post offices in their districts.
I believe he can via the powers vested in him via the MacCarren Walters act in 1952. I think Carter used it against Iranian students.
Truman vetoed the act and his veto was overridden
so yes Trump most certainly will have that authority should he win.
Its already codified in law.
It’s nothing of the sort. You call me a dem? You must be a fascist. Entertaining the idea of mass murder of people you have defeated is un-American. how dare me? No coward, more like how dare you? Only a damned -coward- shoots defeated civilian captives. It sure as hell isn’t part of Texas history unless it was the Mexican Army shooting Texians, or Comanches torturing the poor wretches they captured.
You suggested the technique of, Lenin, Castro, Hitler, and others. it isn’t the American way.
Basically you are an ass-hole.
this forum states NO PERSONAL ATTACKS AND YOU STARTED BY CALLING ME A MORON.
Obvious you are a demokkkrat operative and are scared of exposure. democrats often tout “ that’s un- AMERICAN” to what? catching traitors that destroyed the country deliberately?
Im not responding to you again. I know your type and they sicken me. Leave me alone.
“Why haven’t GOP lawmakers done the same to try to curb Obama’s initiatives?”
can you say uniparty
You can put these in any order that you wish: They don't want to. They not only approve of what he is doing, they are in total agreement. The degree of contempt that the Republican Party holds its base in cannot be measured. The extent that Ted Cruz initially had me fooled, I am ashamed to admit.
Oh, yeah. Senior moment. Sorry. St. Louis.
And all immigrants from Moslem-dominated countries with major terrorist presence is not the same as banning all Muslims. So they shouldn’t worry that this would end all terrorism in the US. There are loopholes big enough to slip a suicide vest through.
No sh!t. FDR rounded up Japanese, including US natural born, third generation citizens. German Jews were interned along with German gentiles as enemy aliens. These people are so full of sh!t it’s coming out their ears.
Visa applicants from those countries should fully pay for the cost of thoroughly investigating them in their application fee, and it should take as long as it needs to. Plus, we don’t need any immigrants from those countries, or any country. Johnson’s act changing emphasis on admitting those from northwest Europe, as the founding settlers themselves were, was sold by promising us it wouldn’t change the character of the country. Anyone out there can look at America now and claim that didn’t change the character of the country?
Please do and make sure they spell your name and home district info on the bills properly. You wouldn’t want to miss out on the “Credit” for such a great bill to protect American lives.
“...contempt that the Republican Party holds its base in cannot be measured.”
The contempt that both parties have for the average citizen is beneath contempt, they are scoundrels one and all.
That I have been hornswoggled for last couple of elections cycles makes me ashamed.
However Trump has shown what utter contemptible persons inhabit the govt these days.
If nothing else this election cycle,there will be many otherwise worthless bureaucrats looking for employment come November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.