Islamic immigration has been at the forefront of politics in Europe, Asia (including Russia) and the United States. Allowing unrestricted Islamic immigration without THOROUGH vetting, and it includes a consideration of religion, is complete folly.
Speaker Paul Ryan weighs in on the issue, and I have no idea why he feels this way. Most Americans disagree with Speaker Ryan. At this point so would most French, Belgium, German, Polish and Hungarian people.
(Breitbart - op cit) By declaring that it would not be “proper” or “appropriate” for the United States to consider the religion of a visa applicant— or whether the applicant supports Sharia law or Muslim theocracy — Ryan is effectively suggesting that the United States should not be allowed to select whom we admit based on likelihood of assimilation.
Maybe this is why Speaker Ryan has so much difficulty endorsing a Trump presidency?
I don't suggest that Speaker Ryan is not entitled to his own opinion, but I think that it's a dangerous opinion when you consider it in context with the larger issue not just nationally but internationally.
By way of a post script, how many Sunni Syrian refugees did the Saudis take in? (answer is 0) That being the case, why did they make that decision?