• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you oppose muslim immigration

Do you oppose muslim immigration?

  • Don't care, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshippers are da REAL threat

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    46

Natan

Banned
Joined
Sep 12, 2015
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
436
Location
Hamster farm in Belgium
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, Trump has had his thread here but what are the views here? Yes, or only from high risk countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan) and not from low risk countries (Turkey, Albania), or not at all and on what grounds (separation of church and state, humanitarian grounds)...
 
No.
Allowing the terrorists to be viewed as representative of an entire religion is handing them a victory.

I am for some limited sensible approaches to restrictions for immigration and travel based on locations and war zones.
Never based on religion.

In the last 10 years, more Americans have died (at home) from Lettuce than Terrorists.
 
This sounds more like option 2, what's the difference?

The difference is that every effort must be made to refrain from labeling the terrorists as Islamic or Muslim.
To do so, is to give them what they want and begin this battle from a position of weakness.

In some cases, the result might be the same.
You say ban Muslims from Syria, I say ban Syrians due to potential enemy combatants.

But the difference is that you give the terrorists what they are fighting for, and I withhold it.
 
The difference is that every effort must be made to refrain from labeling the terrorists as Islamic or Muslim.
Most terrorist acts today around the world ARE from Islamic/Muslim terrorists.

To do so, is to give them what they want and begin this battle from a position of weakness.
I see the political correctness brigade got to you.
 
No, on the grounds that Muslim does not mean Muslim extremist. Should we limit where blacks may live based on black street gang activity? After all, the more X that you let in then the more X extremists (gang members?) are likely to be among them. ;)
 
Most terrorist acts today around the world ARE from Islamic/Muslim terrorists.
Well, with you I guess they are winning. If you allow a fraction of 1% to represent 100% of anything, then you are offering that fraction a bigger victory than they could have ever imagined.

Anyhow, around the world, these killers are indeed attempting to represent the Muslim religion.
In the United States, Christian terrorists are still ahead in the post 9/11 era.

I see the political correctness brigade got to you.
I've never been "politically correct" and sure as hell won't start today.
I know more about this topic than a significant number of our politicians.
All you have to do is pay attention to what is, rather than what you think should be.
 
No. On the grounds of: Law, human rights, anti-bigotry, not being a tool driven by fear.
 
Well, Trump has had his thread here but what are the views here? Yes, or only from high risk countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan) and not from low risk countries (Turkey, Albania), or not at all and on what grounds (separation of church and state, humanitarian grounds)...

Yes.

For the record, I also would like to prohibit immigration by FSM retards.
 
Can you supply links for that (bolded above) assertion?

Are All Terrorists Muslims? It?s Not Even Close - The Daily Beast
That's for EU and US. I was speaking world wide.


Look for countries with most terrorist attacks. Notice anything in common? See some of the top countries producing "refugees" for the EU (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan)?
 
That's for EU and US. I was speaking world wide.



Look for countries with most terrorist attacks. Notice anything in common? See some of the top countries producing "refugees" for the EU (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan)?

Speaking worldwide in thread about the US is logical because...?

Many of these high terror countries have little (or no) government even pretending to be in control. We have higher crime (and terrorism) in certain areas of the US - should we attempt to limit folks from those areas from traveling? I have no objection to much better border security and vetting of potential immigrants but silly bans on entire groups of folks because .01% of them are likely to be terrorists is not the answer.
 
Speaking worldwide in thread about the US is logical because...?
Because the US seems quite fond recently to take in those swarming the EU, Syrian refugees? Take a good look again at the top terror countries.

Many of these high terror countries have little (or no) government even pretending to be in control.
And why would that be? Governments are made up of their people. If they manage to screw up their country, maybe it is a clear indication they might screw up yours with their ideas, religion and culture?
 
Absolutely not.

If there's evidence that they're tied to any Terrorist organization, then absolutely. If they indicate a refusal or lack of desire to assimilate into the United States culture as opposed to that of fundamentalist Islam, then I'd be find denying it. But simply off the basis of them being Muslim? No.
 
Absolutely not. If there's evidence that they're tied to any Terrorist organization, then absolutely. If they indicate a refusal or lack of desire to assimilate into the United States culture as opposed to that of fundamentalist Islam, then I'd be find denying it. But simply off the basis of them being Muslim? No.
And what if they are not terrorist (yet) but hold views that are dangerous and could subvert society?

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts. These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.” Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.


https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy...he-use-of-our-recent-poll-of-american-muslim/
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy...uslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
 
No.
Allowing the terrorists to be viewed as representative of an entire religion is handing them a victory.

I am for some limited sensible approaches to restrictions for immigration and travel based on locations and war zones.
Never based on religion.

In the last 10 years, more Americans have died (at home) from Lettuce than Terrorists.

Then we need a War on Veggies.
 

If in interviews or the vetting process it's discovered that individuals support or express a belief that terrorism is a legitimate tactic, REGARDLESS of their religion, I support denying the approval of immigration status.

Suggesting that an exterior form of legal system should be able to be utilized instead of the United States court system goes to my comment regarding assimilation.

However, your own link shows 39% of muslims polled DON'T feel that way about shariah courts. Or the 63% that think people absolutely should be free to engage in expression to offend muslims. What you provided doesn't actually back up the notion we should ban ALL Muslims, but rather goes to my point that we should be looking at broader notions that are not singularly focused around religion.
 
Well, Trump has had his thread here but what are the views here? Yes, or only from high risk countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan) and not from low risk countries (Turkey, Albania), or not at all and on what grounds (separation of church and state, humanitarian grounds)...

We cannot ban a religion in this country, and you cannot prevent one from immigration based solely on their religion. That is anti-American.
 
And what if they are not terrorist (yet) but hold views that are dangerous and could subvert society?

It's a free nation.
 
I voted no, on the grounds that it's bigoted and obnoxious. I know quite a few Muslims, and they are great people. Not all Muslims are radical killers, just like not all people from the South are like Dylann Roof and not all law students are like Ted Bundy and not all New Englanders are like Adam Lanza and not all men who dress up as clowns are like John Wayne Gacy. Let's just say I'm not a big fan of the broad brushing.
 
I voted no, on the grounds that it's bigoted and obnoxious. I know quite a few Muslims, and they are great people. Not all Muslims are radical killers, just like not all people from the South are like Dylann Roof and not all law students are like Ted Bundy and not all New Englanders are like Adam Lanza and not all men who dress up as clowns are like John Wayne Gacy. Let's just say I'm not a big fan of the broad brushing.

But what about women in New England being totally hot?

We can hang on to that stereotype, can't we?
 
Back
Top Bottom