Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham Attack Trump Over Muslim Immigration


The Speaker of the House and two presidential candidates—all of whom have supported amnesty and immigration expansions—are coming after GOP frontrunner Donald Trump following his declaration that the U.S. should pause Muslim migration into the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. has issued green cards— i.e. permanent resettlement documents— to 1.5 million migrants from Muslim countries since 9/11.

Marco Rubio described Trump’s position on curbing immigration as “offensive and outlandish.”

Lindsey Graham labeled Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”

Under current policy, Pew projects the number of Muslims in America will outnumber Jews by 2040.

But that milestone would be eclipsed sooner under legislation proposed by both Graham and Rubio. The Gang of Eight bill would have significantly expanded Muslim migration— including refugees, family migrants, and foreign workers. Moreover, Rubio has repeatedly expressed his support for adding Syrian refugees to the current Muslim migrant inflow and has said he’d “hate to use” Congress’s power of the purse to stop Obama’s refugee resettlement operation.

According to Rasmussen, 65 percent of conservative voters think America should allow zero refugees from the Middle East into America. Rasmussen did not ask about Muslims from the Middle East in specific.

Speaker Paul Ryan—who helped derail bipartisan immigration cuts proposed in the 1990s which would have necessarily reduced the Muslim migration surge—declared that Trump’s position on pausing immigration, “is not conservatism.” Ryan added, “What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

Over the next five years, the U.S. will issue more green cards to Muslim migrants than the population of Washington D.C., the Senate’s Immigration Subcommittee has documented with public Homeland Security data. A green card puts recipients on a path to citizenship and gives them access to welfare and entitlements.

Paul Ryan has a two-decade long history of promoting open borders immigration policies. In 2013, he told a crowd that it is the job of a lawmaker to put himself in the shoes of a foreign national— specifically foreigners from countries with large Muslim populations—and work to come up with solutions and immigration policies that would improve their quality of life. Ryan said:

Put yourself in another person’s shoes, which if you’re in elected office, that’s what you kind of have to do that almost every single day… The gentleman from India who’s waiting for his green card. The DREAMer who is waiting. We take all these different perspectives. We process it through our values and our morals and our principles. And then we come up with the answer to try and solve this problem. That’s basically what we do in our jobs.

India is home to the world’s second largest Muslim population— 176 million, according to Pew.

In his remarks today, Ryan declared that, “The vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy and individual rights.”

However, it is unclear what polling data Ryan is basing this assertion upon. In fact, on Monday, the National Review, whose own editorial board endorsed Ryan for Speaker, published a piece debunking this very claim.

The piece, entitled, “Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate,” states plainly: “It is simply false to declare that jihadists represent the ‘tiny few extremists’ who sully the reputation of an otherwise peace-loving and tolerant Muslim faith. In reality, the truth is far more troubling — that jihadists represent the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale, with hundreds of millions of believers holding views that Americans would rightly find revolting.”

Hoover Institution media fellow and New York Post contributor Paul Sperry has noted that there are, “51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having ‘the choice of being governed according to Shariah,’ or Islamic law.” Perry writes that, “60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

Recent video footage captured on the streets of Cedar Riverside, Minnesota, showed a number of U.S. Muslims explaining that they preferred sharia law to American law. One boy who was interviewed explained that he would rather live under sharia law because it would promote safer communities: “Sharia law, it says that if you steal something, they cut off your hand,” the boy explained. “So, basically, [people] can leave their doors open. Nobody’s going to steal anything because Sharia is so tight.”

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act excludes the admission of supporters of totalitarian ideology: “In general – any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.”  [212(a)(3)(D)(i)]

Additionally, under current law the president has the authority to suspend immigration. Under 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens- “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President”:

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President,” states that: ‘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…’


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.