text: This news report does a good job of reporting on the constitutionality matter of Trump's recent move on refugees, for example from Syria, to ban all Muslim refugees but to have a case-by-case basis review of Christians for possible admittance.
  
  My prediction would be that a US Court judge (or Supreme Court) would likely rule against Trump. The establishment of religion clause of the US Constitution has been widely interpreted as providing a muscular freedom of religion, and a requirement for hands-off from government in he area of religious favouratism.
  
  I predict that Trump does not have a leg to stand on, legally, with that part of his proposal on refugees.
  
  I do note, however, the Globe and Mail was remarkably quiet about Obama's system, which reportedly took in massively greater numbers of Muslims than Christians from Syria (greater numbers taking into account the per capita distribution there, about ten percent Christian but refugees to US well under one percent Christian).