Posted on 11/19/2015 7:23:03 AM PST by House Atreides
House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)58% is ruling out making any cuts to Muslim immigration.
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Ryan declared that considering an applicant's religion would not be "appropriate" and would be fundamentally un-American---insisting "that's not who we are."
...
Ryan said, in part, that the reason the program could not simply be canceled is because, "We're a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws and we don't want terrorists to dictate how we run--whether we have a law or not."
While throughout the interview Ryan seemed to ground his argument on the premise that we cannot apply a religious test as a basis for admissions to the United States, both Rush Limbaugh and Andrew McCarthy have explained how U.S. law does, in fact, require a religious test when it comes to making considerations about visa issuances.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Talk about trading a headache for acute colitis.
Leni
What a dope. Why can’t these guys see this as a win-win issue?
I guess you never hear what the Pope says either then.
Either resign or face removal. That is the only choice.
You’re saying: This statute provides us with legal basis to refuse refugee status because WE are able to deny people based on a religious test provided in the text of the law you quoted. If I am misreading what you’re saying, stop here and correct me.
I am saying the various parts of this law describe who is eligible to claim refugee status and that where religion is mentioned, it’s mentioned as one of the types of persecution for which a person can validly request that status.
With that said, here’s my interpretation of each part of what you quoted:
(42)A person can claim to be a refugee if they are/will be.....
A) persecuted on count of race, religion, nationality etc..
B) persecuted based on race, religion, nationality etc...Where special circumstances exist that the President (after following section 1157(e)) determines
The term refugee does not apply to anyone involved in the persecution of people based on race, religion, nationality etc...
A refugee can also be someone who’s undergone forced abortion or sterilization as a result of political opinion.
Please tell me how I’m misreading this.
In short, it says “You can claim refugee status if you experience persecution based on these topics (race, religion, nationality etc...)”. It does NOT say “The United States can refuse to grant refugee status based on these topics (race, religion, nationality etc...)
Amazing the number of turncoats the RINO party has.
Wonder if Boehner and Ryan are reptilians?
Thank God actions happen in a vacuum and there’s never any consequence.That way we can all keep voting for lesser evils and never have to take responsibility for our own actions. Besides, we have to keep our powder dry, It’s better to vote for a liberal republican that gives Obama 100% of what he wants than vote for a conservative and maybe win.
I essentially agree with your analysis of it, I am just saying that the claim no religious litmus test has ever existed is bogus based on a clear reading of the laws on the books and paying attention to past history. If someone claims that they are being persecuted based on their religion, then you have to verify they are of said religion and determine if the request for refugee status is legitimate (ultimately a religious litmus test). At least you would have to do this if you are legitimately performing the job function described in the codified law.
Vote his a$$ out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ryan is not going to fight obama anymore than Boner or McWeasal. Immigration, legal or illegal is what Ryan and the boys have been bought and paid for to do and the fact that some Americans might get murdered is of no consequence to the Chamber of Crony Commerce scumbags, after all they stopped being Americans long ago.
I HATE these Republicans in Congress. Except for a tiny minority (Cruz), they are all castrated democrats! I have more respect for the democrats, since at least they fight for their values!
Yours is a very generous view.
Instead, I read it as another example o Congress escaping its responsibility...again. Instead, the immigration decision -- previously the purview of the Congress -- has been offloaded to the Executive branch.
Sure, it requires that the Sec'y of Homeland Security, the FBI Director and the National Intelligence Director vouch for those admitted. All of these officials serve at the President's pleasure!
So, what are they gonna do? What the President tells them, is what?
There is not even going to be a "pause". Certainly, not a pause that extends beyond the length of a phone call from the White House.
As proof of that, the budget bill -- in which this particular item has been inserted -- fully funds the President's proposed immigration plan.
We're getting gamed...again! And I cannot conceive of a reason for Ryan's position that has anything to do with patriotism or the best interests of the nation. The US of A is being sold out by our elected representatives.
[Ryan said, in part, that the reason the program could not simply be canceled is because, “We’re a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws and we don’t want terrorists to dictate how we run—whether we have a law or not.” ]
Who needs Obama when we have Paul Ryan to open our borders to ISIS?
This knobby, frail congress critter can kiss my grits~ He is no man, only a servant to his masters. Our field of ‘by the people, for the people’ critters is becoming the minority in DC. And all around US these blinded individuals still don’t perceive the TRUMP surge and likelihood of winning. Isn’t it wonderful, they all had the $$ for a higher education. Such a pity that the funds weren’t used buying common sense.
Ok, so now you see what I mean. This law does not say we can impose a religious test to determine if someone is a refugee (i.e. This law does not enable us to say You’re a muslim, sorry!”). This law only says “You can be a refugee if you’re being persecuted for (race, religion, nationality etc...).
So now that we have established that the law cited in the NRO article does not allow us to impose a religious test...you said:
“...the claim that no religious litmus test has ever existed is bogus based on a clear reading of the laws on the books”
Which law? If you know of a law that allows us to impose the test you’re talking about, please cite it because we’re going to need it!
I’m on your side here, I do NOT want any part of these refugees being here as I think it’s suicidal. That’s what the author of that NRO piece tried to do and he’s on our side too but, as we determined, he misread it.
Rat boy Ryan strikes back.
I thought I laid my point out pretty well already. It has been done before (denying refugee status based on claims of religious persecution while also allowing others who make essentially the same claim to be proffered refugee status or asylum if you prefer). Hell, it is happening right now with Coptic Christians from the middle east while we are bending over backwards to accept Islamic Syrians bent on our destruction.
If someone makes the claim of religious persecution, is it not prudent of the person assessing such claims to assure that they (the claimer) are being truthful and to determine such to the best of their ability? In essence, this is a litmus test of the person’s religious claim (are you of the right religion to lay this claim, etc...).
This might be a distinction without a difference to you, which is why we might not be seeing eye to eye on this.
I think that I would preface the whole Syrian refugee status issue with what is right and prudent for the host country and cite the obvious national security issues. We don’t seem to have a president that is interested in such matters though.
In essence, this is a litmus test of the person’s religious claim (are you of the right religion to lay this claim, etc...). yes!
What YOU argued before (and the point of the article itself) is "once we determine they are muslim, we shouldn't let them in".
What I am saying is "Please show me the law that says we can base our decision on refugee status what religion someone is" because the law the article (and you) cited does NOT say that.
In reality, this IS the United States, and there really shouldn’t be a test for religion.
That said, the real test we should have is: Do we need you???
In a country with 93 million unemployed, the answer to that is a resounding NO!
In a country that is threatened with terrorism by the country the “refugees” are escaping from, the answer to that is a resounding NO!
In a country that can’t afford to support our truly indigent, veterans, and elderly, the answer to that is a resounding NO!
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.