Paul Ryan stands by his opposition to Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Paul Ryan and Donald Trump are again on opposite sides of the debate over whether Muslims should be banned from entering the United States.

“I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country’s interest. It’s not reflective of our principles not just as a party but as a country,” Ryan told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, criticizing the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s proposal, which Trump reiterated after the deadly massacre at a gay nightclub in Florida over the weekend.

The speaker stressed that there was an important distinction to be made in the fight against terror threats, saying, “This is a war with radical Islam. It’s not a war with Islam. Muslims are our partners.”

Ryan asserted that the focus should be on security risks, not targeting specific faiths. “Ultimately, we ought to have the tools where we have a security test, not a religious test, a security test, and we think that’s the preferred route to go.”

The speaker strongly denounced Trump’s proposal, which he first outlined in December, saying then, it was “not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.” He said Tuesday that he stood by those comments.

But pressed as he was walking away from the microphones if he stood by his support of Trump as the GOP presumptive nominee, Ryan ignored the question.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid ripped into the GOP nominee on the Senate floor Tuesday, saying he failed the most important test for a presidential candidate on how to handle a crisis.

“Donald Trump failed that test,” Reid said. “He proved he is not commander in chief material — underlined, underscored.”

In an effort to show the House GOP have their own anti-terror agenda, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced GOP leaders were changing the floor schedule this week and rolling a series of anti-terror measures that already passed into one package ‎and voting on it this week. McCarthy stressed they hoped this would give momentum for the Senate to act.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul also announced he was working on new legislation specifically focused on the Orlando attack.

10 comments

  • guest73

    Ryan is kissing Donald’s behind, hoping (again) for his VP slot. But at least it’ll get him out of Wis.

  • jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

    Generally the MO presented by people like Ryan and the media, certainly the entire left, is that most Muslims are peaceful, okay; but what does that mean? How does this translate into actual numbers relative to studies?

    There’s about 1.8 billion Muslims globally. There’s about 3.3 million Muslims that live in the U.S.

    Pew has done studies on beliefs of the global Muslim population, some examples:

    7% of the 3.3 million U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets is sometimes justified to defend Islam. 7% doesn’t sound like much does it? 7% of 3.3 million is about 231,000.

    8% of the global population of Muslims believe suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets is sometimes justified to defend Islam. What does that translate to in real numbers? 144,000,000—that’s million folks, almost half the U.S. population.

    Yet the press, I suppose, is too lazy to actually calculate the numbers from the low percentiles.

    • jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

      Here’s a link to the Pew stats just posted:
      http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-app-a/

      More stats from the same link:
      Over 20% of ALL Muslims say religious devotion and modern life are incompatible. This represents over 300 million, the population of the U.S.

      More stats: 24% of Muslims believe all citizens should be subject to Sharia law. That’s close to 500 million. Sample percents of Muslims in select countries that favor implementation of Sharia law: Afghanistan (99%); Iraq (91%); Pakistan (84%); Palestinian (89%); Egypt (74%); Jordan (71%);

      U.S. (51%) of Muslims support sharia law as official law.

      In six of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of those who favor making Islamic law the official law also support executing apostates.

      That we’re an immigrant society/country isn’t the issue. Immigrants historically come to this country because they believed in the foundations of what our Constitution represents.

      When we hear in the press the disgust, the audacity that Trump would dare state he would seek a temporary ban on Muslims; the outcry comes with “that’s not what this country is all about”. Yet one of the primary, the fundamental tenets of the Constitution is to protect the country.

      How is a general open door immigration policy to the U.S., that is incompatible with a large swath of the Muslim population, capable of screening out 144 million believers in suicide bombing? How does allowing Sharia believers to become citizens (those who would prefer Sharia to replace the Constitution) count towards defense of the country? We didn’t just allow everyone to pass through Ellis Island. Where did the lax attitudes come from, why shouldn’t we only allow in those people who want the experience of what the Constitution provides? There’s nothing that says we should allow those that are antithetical to our culture in. Obviously PCism has brainwashed certain conservatives.

  • jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

    One of the requirements of becoming a U.S. citizen is: “You will swear that you believe in the principles of the U.S. Constitution and will be loyal to the U.S.”

    How does Ryan square to this relative to the Constitution?

    51% of U.S. Muslims believe that Sharia law should be the law of the land. I don’t even know how to quantify those that wave Mexican flags that we see at every protest march. But these people flunk the requirement, it’s not a question.

    Some of the most purist conservatives I know apparently believe this requirement of becoming a citizen isn’t a necessary condition to be a U.S. citizen, they cowardly fall behind PC or have literally become brainwashed as to what this country represents. “We must welcome everybody”, while yes, we’re a compassionate people, but no, there’s no basis of fact that we must welcome all, not even every religion if it’s antithetical; poses a threat to the Constitution, to the country. One of the basic tenets of the country is to protect the nation, which means it’s borders and anything that threatens the Constitution. Is it really that hard to figure out?.

  • Middletown

    Opposition?
    Anyone who saw him lose a debate with an old philandering rambling drunk of a man named Biden, knows this Paul Ryan can hardly spell the word, much less form up any political opposition to Trump.

  • liberty

    Paul Ryan is just another puppet in the hands of the Elite. Just look at all the back room agreements that have taken place since Obama has taken the lead. Good-bye Constitution and our freedoms.

Comments are closed.