What did Paul Ryan really say about suing Trump over his proposed Muslim immigration ban?
In the debate about Paul Ryan’s supposed threat to sue Donald Trump if Trump were to issue an executive order banning Muslim immigration, let’s start with what Ryan said—not what we imagine he said based on our pre-existing opinion of Paul Ryan, or what some pro- or anti-Trump blog or media outlet said he said, but what he actually said. Here’s the first exchange, which originally occurred on June 14:
QUESTION: Speaker Ryan, you said that Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims coming into the country was not (inaudible). Chairman McCaul has said that (inaudible) rhetoric (inaudible) helps the recruiting of ISIS. Was Donald Trump wrong to double-down on his Muslim…
Paul D. Ryan: No, I stand by my remarks. I’ll bet you do, too, as well. I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country’s interest. I do not think it is reflective of our principles not just as a party, but as a country. And I think the smarter way to go in all respects is to have a security test and not a religious test.
QUESTION: Constitutionally, do you think Donald Trump, if he were president, could enact a ban on (inaudible)?
Paul D. Ryan:That’s a question — that’s a question about immigration law. And you can go into the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act to determine whether or not the president has that kind of discretion of not.
No threat to sue there. The lawsuit remark occurred in a HuffPo interview two days later:
In a sit-down interview in his ceremonial Capitol Hill office on Thursday, Ryan told The Huffington Post that Trump does not have “a blank check” with his endorsement. “I don’t know what that line is,” Ryan said, “but right now, I want to make sure that we win the White House.”
So, what he is saying is that even a Republican president cannot just do whatever he wants; that the imperial presidency needs checking on either side, but that his priority is to get a Republican president in the White House.
He continued:
On the topic of Trump’s proposed Muslim ban and his statements that he could enact such a policy without Congress, Ryan noted that Republicans were releasing part of their agenda on executive overreach that very day, and, in news that’s sure to please Trump, Ryan suggested that he and the House of Representatives were prepared to sue a Republican president if need be.
“I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” Ryan said.
It’s unclear, however, if Ryan thinks Trump enacting a ban on Muslims entering the country would actually exceed presidential powers. “That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about,” Ryan said, pointing to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
So as far as I can see, it’s later writers who have been suggesting that Ryan said he’d sue Trump over Muslim immigration and then claimed to not be sure if a Muslim ban violates the law. But Ryan does not appear to have said that at all, at least not so far as I can tell from rather lengthy research trying to get a copy of the actual interview text (if you can find one, please let me know). What I see here is probably a clever piece of suggestive writing by the HuffPo author, suggesting that Ryan said what he said about executive overreach in a discussion “on the topic of Trump’s proposed Muslim ban and his statements that he could enact such a policy without Congress.” What appears to have happened, as best I can reconstruct amidst the twists and spin, is that it was the interviewer who was discussing Trump’s Muslim ban, and Ryan countered by saying he reserved the right to sue any president for executive overreach, and that Congress agrees, and that it is not at all clear that Trump’s Muslim ban would be a case of executive overreach. But it seems that some conservatives fell into the “Ryan is an anti-Trump POS” trap.
What does Ryan appear to have actually said? I would love to get my hands on a transcript to determine that, but from what I’ve read it appears that he said what I’ve just summarized him as having stated. I would think most conservatives would agree with his general statement on restricting executive overreach when it occurs—unless they want a dictator who is our dictator, but then I wouldn’t think the word “conservative” should apply. As far as a ban on Muslim immigration goes, Ryan has expressed disagreement with it and prefers an ideologically-based ban (I am in agreement with that idea of a ban based on ideology, and have been for quite some time; see this post from last December).
This incident has been reported, however—and later spread around the blogosphere—as though Ryan had said something like “I disagree with Trump’s ban on Muslims and if he does anything of the sort I’ll sue him—and by the way I have no idea whether what he is proposing is legal or not.” What he apparently did say is more like this, “I disagree with Trump’s Muslim ban and I’d prefer a ban on certain ideologies,” and on a separate occasion: “I want a GOP president, but I’m prepared to sue one if he oversteps, as I would sue a Democrat who oversteps. But on the Muslim ban question, that needs researching because it may or may not be overstepping.”
Talking Points Memo, a blog on the left, titled its article about this, “Paul Ryan On Stopping A President Trump’s Muslim Ban: We’ll Sue Him!” That’s what they want you to think Ryan said. TPM almost certainly knows that pro-Trump and anti-Ryan blogs and pundits will pick up on it and spread the word around as though that’s what Ryan said, and that it will become accepted as truth. I’ve seen the right fall for this type of ploy many many many times: picking up on the spin of the left about someone on the right, and reacting in rage.
Look, you can hate Paul Ryan all you want, but hate him for something he actually did or said, not what the left says he said. And if you can find something from his own mouth that contradicts my reconstruction here of what actually happened, please present it. My goal is finding the truth rather than repeating the spin of others, or protecting or attacking Paul Ryan. I would hope that’s your goal, too.
[NOTE: One other related issue was discussed in the comments section recently. There were quite a few comments on the general subject, but I’ll stick to an exchange I had with commenter “Frog,” who brought up the Paul Ryan lawsuit question here by writing:
Paul (the goat from Janesville) Ryan says “We” will sue Trump as POTUS if he exceeds what the goat believes allowable about Muslims and Mexico. He sure hasn’t sued Hussein yet.
My answer can be found here. At the time I wrote my reply to Frog, I had not yet found the original articles about Ryan and the lawsuit and what he said, and did not yet realize that Ryan had not actually threatened to sue Trump because of the Muslim ban. In my reply to Frog, I pointed out that Ryan was indicating a disagreement with any process that meant a president would be exceeding his powers. And then I took up the question of whether Ryan, as Frog wrote, “sure hasn’t sued Hussein [Obama] yet,” and the history of that:
Paul Ryan has been Speaker only since Oct. 29, 2015, which is about seven and a half months. But his predecessor—a man you probably detested as well, John Boehner—has sued Obama. The topic had to do with the same issue, executive action that was inappropriate and a violation of the separation of powers.
The history of the first Boehner lawsuit is here (it had to do with Obamacare). Then in 2015 Boehner said he planned to sue Obama again, this time for executive overreach on immigration. But (at least as far as I can determine) before it got to the Senate, the lawsuits by Texas and 25 other states against Obama got an injunction (in Feb. of 2015), and so Congress’ lawsuit was put on hold.
In addition, in late February 2016, Paul Ryan threatened to sue Obama if he closes Gitmo:
“We are making legal preparations if the president tries to break the law,” Ryan said on Wednesday.
The Wisconsin Republican said what “boggles” his mind is that Obama would be directing the military to knowingly break the law by transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to U.S. prisons in an effort to close the detention center.
“Our law is really clear,” Ryan said, adding that it was Democrats who first wrote the language barring detainees from coming to American soil.
So, Boehner sued Obama over questions of presidential power re Obamacare, and came close to suing over the same issue with immigration but appears to have stopped because other lawsuits resulted in an injunction. Since Ryan has become Speaker, which was fairly recently late last October, he has threatened to sue Obama over the same issue of limiting presidential power, this time regarding closing Gitmo. This was a direct and specific threat to Obama by Ryan over that issue, unlike his very general recent statement reserving the right to sue a Republican president who overstepped, as well, the one that was spun by the liberal media into a specific threat to sue Trump over a specific issue.
By the way, Ryan’s threat to sue Obama over any executive order to close Gitmo may have worked, because (if you can believe Obama, which is always iffy) the White House indicated four days ago that Obama will not issue such an executive order.]
Unlike with SSM, there is NO question regarding the President’s powers on this issue. Ryan ain’t helping injecting non-existent controversy into this debate.
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)
(f) 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.
Cornhead:
There’s plenty of question re religion. The controversy is not the least bit “nonexistent,” and Ryan did not “inject” it into the debate. It’s been debated ever since Trump made his statement about banning Muslims, back in December. Ryan was recently asked about it by several members of the press, concerning a debate that’s been going on since back then.
I’ve already given links to articles about that. I wrote posts about it back in December that had nothing to do with Paul Ryan. Here are more, pro and con.
A religion is a class of people. Non-citizens have no right of entry. We have no duty to allow them entry. Entry is a matter of grace and security. And non-citizens have no constitutional rights outside the borders of the US. That’s why we put the terrorists at Gitmo.
Best not to give the Left an inch as they will take a mile.
This is a matter of risk management. Risk of even one terrorist is too high.
Cornhead:
That’s your opinion, and you are free to argue it. I’ve stated my opinion in my posts back in December, as well.
But that’s a different question than what we’re talking about here. Ryan didn’t come down on either side of the issue; he said it is an issue, and you earlier wrote it’s not an issue and that the issue is “nonexistent” and that Ryan “injected” it into a non-debate.
Untrue.
It is an issue. Reasonable people differ on it. It has been debated since December, and many legal experts disagree with you (that doesn’t make them right, nor are you necessarily right).
Neo
Ryan didn’t have to answer. He could have dodged the question. He is adding fuel to the anti-Trump fire. I expect this type of stuff from Rachael Maddow; not the Speaker. It also adds to the Muslim as victim narrative. And, of course, Muslims are solid Dems; like the Orlando terrorist.
Cornhead:
Of course he could have dodged the question. But if he really believes it could represent a threat to the power of Congress or to the Constitution itself, he certainly is not out-of-bounds to state that there is question about the constitutionality of banning immigrants by religion. In doing so, he basically did sidestep the question of whether this would be a problem, while preserving the right of Congress to sue either a Democrat or Republican president.
I thought that most reluctant Trump supporters were cheered by the idea that the GOP in Congress would put a brake on Trump’s excesses if such excesses were to occur. Apparently GOP members of Congress are not supposed to state that fact (even in order to help protect their own re-election chances and try to preserve GOP control of Congress if Trump is trounced as they believe he almost certainly will be)?
But whether Ryan was right or wrong to say what he did say is not the subject of the post. I haven’t decided what I think about that, actually; I see both sides of the issue. The subject of this post is how distorted the reporting on it has been, and how I’ve seen many on the right accept unquestioningly the spin of the left on it.
English, how does it work, he could have made an argument
refining the plan,
Always surprising how people draw such firm lines about such ambiguous issues. I have seen numerous opinions castigating Paul Ryan for what he did not say. Opinions form, and harden, and will not be swayed.
One of our problems today is the lack of authoritative and credible sources of information. Of course in the past the largely unrecognized problem was that the authoritative sources that we thought were also credible, were not.
one takes this in the context, of loaded up with cr with practically every dem priorities, roberts care, and planned parenthood, hamstringing the incoming congress, floating that pac, shadowed the official campaign, and the basenghi like attitude to the administration,
I would love to be persuaded that Ryan is not part of the GOPe. I was an early and strong supporter of Ryan. But then, little hints keep appearing;
“Paul D. Ryan: No, I stand by my remarks. … I think the smarter way to go in all respects is to have a security test and not a religious test.”
Ryan has to know that there is no way to have a security test for migrants. FBI Director Comey and another highly placed official (can’t remember who) have publicly admitted that there is no way to reliably vet Muslim migrants. Add in Islam’s doctrines of Taqiyya and Muruna, plus the high support for Shariah law among migrants and a ‘security test’ is a very bad joke.
Geoffrey Britain:
I have discussed how a security test (which I have referred to as an ideological test) would go. I’ll try to find some links later; don’t have time at the moment. But suffice to say it could be done, and that it is actually better in some ways than a religious test, which could also easily be gamed.
There is no foolproof test. It is all in how they are implemented, and either could be implemented effectively or poorly.
FBI Director Comey and another highly placed official (can’t remember who) have publicly admitted that there is no way to reliably vet Muslim migrants.
Comey was talking about Syrian refugees, not all Muslim migrants. And he said there were “gaps” re vetting the Syrians, not that it was totally unreliable:
neo,
I look forward to learning how an effective evaluation process could be achieved.
Ann,
They couldn’t even vet American born Mateen and they’re going to reliably vet foreigners? Please.
now ryan could have referred to cruz’s own proposal as a starting point generated by frank gaffney, which trump has embraced, but ‘no one listens to zathras’
Neo:
“I’ve seen the right fall for this type of ploy many many many times: picking up on the spin of the left about someone on the right, and reacting in rage.”
Yep. Ostensible Right commenters effectively role-playing the strawman foil in the Left’s narrative frame is common. Hard to tell which ones are knowing plants landscaping the discourse and which ones are just dupes.
The Narrative contest for the zeitgeist is critical in the activist game.
I think that using the phrase “all Muslims” is a bad idea. It would probably put pressure on people like King Abdullah to stand up to the Americans. It is better to simply say that we are going to strengthen our vetting procedures without being too precise. Donald doesn’t know that you can’t conduct all foreign policy on TV.
expat,
That is an excellent point, with which in principle I agree. Never telegraph your punches.
addendum. Trump isn’t conducting foreign policy on TV or otherwise, he’s seeking the votes of the disaffected. Unfortunately, he’s not skilled at it, though if he was, he’d probably be just another politician, as statesmen today are as rare as ‘hen’s teeth’.
“I look forward to learning how an effective evaluation process could be achieved.” – GB
Not a good standard to go by. That Neo may not have the expertise to articulate that detail does not dismiss the proposition that it could be done.
It seems there must be some kind of security test, and the real issue is that the bar is not set high enough, and/or we may be treating all would be immigrants as equal risks no matter where they are coming from, or their reason (highly educated, professional workers with a job offer are probably more stable and less risky).
“Hard to tell which ones are knowing plants landscaping the discourse and which ones are just dupes.” – Eric
Was the Alt-Right’s “intellectual blog” really just satire?
The Journal of American Greatness has closed down their blog and declared that it was started as an “inside joke” that later “ceased to be a joke”… and “Should any such market for our ideas exist in the future, we may participate in it. But we will do so in a different way.”
Found this humorous play off of that…
https://www.youtube.com/embed/iFfsXVTQfA0
Big Maq,
If I understood correctly, neo clearly stated that she had devised a means of evaluation in which she had a high degree of confidence. If that turns out not to be the case, then no that in and of itself does not prove that it cannot be done. But it does still remain to be demonstrated that it can be done.
Given the common abscence of corroborating information, the typically abysmal state of record keeping in third world societies, the chaos refugees flee and the often lost materials, stating that there ‘must’ be a way to reliably vet is at best unsupported optimism.
As for highly educated, professional workers being more stable, I seem to recall some of the 9/11 terrorists fitting that description.
Geoffrey Britain:
You write, “neo, I look forward to learning how an effective evaluation process could be achieved.”
It’s been discussed before on several threads, but the most important discussion can be found in this one. Read the post and then read all the comments, where it is discussed in some depth. I especially refer you to the following comments of mine: this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. The discussion occurred last December, and some of the comments were addressed to you.
I also did a great deal of research on the subject at the time (December, 2015) on how the refugees are currently being vetted. I took a tremendous number of notes for a post that only exists in very rough draft form, but among other things I listened to an interview you can find here. Remember how the MSM kept telling us there was this long and involved vetting process in the refugee camps abroad before people were allowed to come here, where people were interviewed at great length by specially trained US citizens? I wanted to know more about that long and involved process. It turns out that the specially trained people had a week’s course in how to interview, and the interviews usually lasted about an hour, sometimes as much as two. That was it. It wouldn’t take much to improve that process immensely, too (in addition, of course, to my suggestions in those comments I linked to).
And that’s just a small beginning. I am relatively sure this could be done very very well if there was the will to do it (as I said in one of the comments, talk to the Israelis—I bet they’d have a lot of advice).
I hate Paul Ryan.
He has to go. Out with the lot of old-school GOPe Republicans.
neo,
Yes, now I recall that discussion and I carefully and thoroughly reviewed your post and comments. I also looked over a few of my replies and was struck by how you kept stating that Trump’s vetting would fall prey to deceit just as much as would yours, since no system can be perfect.
Outright banning of Muslims from entrance cannot fall prey to deceit because there is no vetting process for them to pass.
Which leaves only the deceit of claiming not to be Muslim, which is a much easier claim to verify than is whether they are moderate or not. And, those admitted can be monitored for behavior that disproves a false claim of being an apostate. Thus only the most skilled would escape notice.
Though under such stringent scrutiny, future jihadists aren’t likely to try to pass through legal entrance barriers and will instead try to sneak across our borders, entering illegally.
Your system also relies upon a legion of skillful interrogators, whose detection of lying would necessarily rely often upon unprovable gut feelings. The ACLU would have a field day attacking such methods.
Yes better questioning would yield better results and trial programs could be tried with results evaluated for a minimum standard of effectiveness.
Perhaps it would be enough but until such a system is developed a temporary ban on Muslim entrance is necessary.
And that trial program should be applied to refugees already admitted, as we know some of them are jihadists and jihadist sympathizers, the pre-stage before active participation.
All of this still avoids a critical issue, the pattern of increased radicalization of each succeeding generation. That’s been the pattern across Europe, with the first generation less ‘radical’ than the second and with the third generation even more so until ‘saturation’ is reached with that percentage willing to fight to impose Islam.
I believe that pattern manifests because Islam’s tenets are antithetical (not just incompatible) with western precepts. Which is why I insist that it is impossible for a sincere, devout Muslim to also be a loyal American. As their ‘two masters’ are antithetical and a servant can only truly serve one or the other.
Ryan started all this by opening his pie hole and attacking Trump earlier … now he’s the go to guy for reporters trying to get a negative angle on Trump …
Of course they twist his words but you’ll notice no complaint from Ryan …
Can you imagine how bad a VP he would have made now that we see his actual leadership skills in action … he’s a coward of the first order …
We need to go the route the Israelis use.
Israel Security functions profile, but not based on race or religion but on how people act.
From going thru security at Ben Gurion numerous times the security folks will apply a subtle stressor to someone to see how they react.
Point in fact, two different times I was asked to show via some document on my computer that I had actually been working where I said and they knew I had been. 1st time I was exasperated and got deeper scrutiny, 2nd time I said sure, how can I help and they moved on.
Profile the behavior not the person.
R Daneel:
Agree, but it isn’t the easy solution of “Ban All Muslims.” One tool to be used. Currently, it seems none are used.
“I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” Ryan said.
Lying sack of sh*t.
Speaking as an ex-journalist, we were taught that a summary judgement early in the story should be backed up by a direct quote supporting it.
If Talking Points Memo or the Huffington Post writer can’t point to the part of the interview where Ryan threatened to sue President Trump, then it didn’t happen and they’re lying.
While stories could be shortened in newsprint for lack of space, that doesn’t happen on the Intertubes, especially for an important accusation such as they’re making.
Ryan is such a ________ (insert name for a housecat). He has two constitutional remedies for unconstitutional acts by a president (or any member of the other two branches), yet he refuses to use either of them. Instead he goes running to our black robed masters, screaming “I’m telling on you!!!”
Geoffrey Britain:
But that’s exactly what I meant, of course—a person can say he/she is not Muslim. Ever hear of taqiya? It’s a fine and highly-developed art.
And no, it’s not easy to verify at all. One reason is that a lot of people have claimed to have lost all papers. And even if there’s some evidence that a person was once a Muslim, that person can claim to have converted to Christianity or some other religion, or to be agnostic or atheist.
I’m talking not about temporary measures, but long-term ones.
And of course the problem of radicalization of existing Muslim citizens remains. In fact, some are even converts. I never suggested that proper vetting of immigrants would solve all problems, and of course that problem is a much knottier one and requires different solutions. Suggestions have been made on that in other threads, but the gist of it is better monitoring of radical mosques, etc..
Controversial, expensive, but necessary.
A lot of you Ryan-haters—did you ever wonder how much of your Ryan-hate was based on media spin and how much on reality?
Being on the right does not make you immune to the propaganda of the left.
And to be clear: I’m not saying Ryan is my favorite politician. There are things I like and don’t like about him, but when I research the basis on which some of the Ryan-hate seems to be built, I find that a lot of it is built on sands of propaganda and spin, incomplete and/or incorrect information.
Kaiser Derden:
Would you like Ryan to indicate that if it’s a Republican president (say, Trump) he’d have no problem if that president exceeds his authority and goes the imperial route?
Would that be brave enough for you?
By the way, you wrote: “Of course they twist his words but you’ll notice no complaint from Ryan …”
It depends what you are prepared to notice. Did it ever occur to you, for example, that Ryan may have complained but that the MSM isn’t reporting that? Just as an example, did you happen to notice this addendum at the tail end of the TPM piece I linked to in the post, the one entitled “Paul Ryan On Stopping A President Trump’s Muslim Ban: We’ll Sue Him!”?:
I bet “AshLee” and others (maybe even Ryan) have said a lot more on the subject of how he was misquoted, but you’d have to look with a fine-tooth comb to find it. People on the right are misquoted and spun all the time—it must be nearly impossible for them to keep up with it all, and even then they can’t guarantee that the public will pay attention.
You didn’t, for example. And the Ryan-camp disclaimer was right there in the article.
Ann Says:
June 18th, 2016 at 7:08 pm
FBI Director Comey and another highly placed official (can’t remember who) have publicly admitted that there is no way to reliably vet Muslim migrants.
Comey was talking about Syrian refugees, not all Muslim migrants. And he said there were “gaps” re vetting the Syrians, not that it was totally unreliable:
%%%%%
Time for some reality injection:
Ankara ( Erdogan ) is cranking out bona fide documents for the fanatics by the THOUSAND.
In spook speak these documents would be termed ‘legends.’
To top this off, ISIS has its OWN printing shop cranking out top quality synthetic histories for its jihadi troopers.
Neo asks:
I ask that question to myself all the time. When confronted with an epistemological question, though, I always look at the results to determine who is lying to us. So far, Ryan is found wanting when it comes to results. The federal budget is still going up, Koskinen still hasn’t been impeached, and the U.S. is still spending Billions to build power plants in Africa and wind farms in Vietnam (corporate welfare for GE). I would love to change my assessment of Ryan; All it would take would be ONE small victory for conservatives – just one little thing that I could look to as a sign that Ryan isn’t just another Boehner. Like Lawrence Ferlinghetti, I Am Waiting.
Service Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Additionally, a 503 Service Unavailable error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.