• 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!

How does a temp Muslim ban help US security.

JustLost said:
All a temp Muslim ban does, is to say to every day

Muslims. The US does like you and does not want you here.

This is bigotry.

Even the GOP US senate leader can’t see the worth

in Trump’s temp Muslim ban.

Saying you are go to increase vetting would be more of a deterrent.
Click to expand...
The same way it did the 6 times Obama implemented it. Why is it that Liberals never got their panties twisted over that but cant seem to figure out how THIS one is supposed to work?:

Maybe its you?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'd rather YOU (and anyone else willing) answer the question; how does the ban HURT American security?
Click to expand...
I’d suggest that the disruption and additional work created by the disorganised manner in which it was rushed in will have distracted the relevant authorities from their day-to-day job of assessing the people entering the US from everywhere else. If there were any terrorists who wanted to get in to the US from any other country (or with fake documents saying they’re from another country), now would be the perfect time to do it.

The other possibility, and the one I think the OP was getting at (however badly worded), is the impression created by the policy, again including the confusion surrounding its initial implementation along with Trump’s earlier proposal which was for an actual “Muslim ban” (the only reason anyone is using that term now) can only add to the resentment among Muslims against the US which can then be (ab)used by the extremists.
 
What better way to remain secure than to start a Holy War for no reason whatsoever?
 
If the country needs more Muslims, tell me why.

I'm nervous about a culture whose religious practices "back home" involve killing people who aren't like them.

We don't need more ghettos. We have enough black and Mexican and white ghettos as it is without adding more Londonistans to our inventory of problem cities.

The Constitution was never meant to be a death warrant.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmmm... :thinking

Nah. :no:

Plenty of people who think "America First" have talked about that in the many other threads on this issue.

I'd rather YOU (and anyone else willing) answer the question; how does the ban HURT American security?
Click to expand...


Are we not agreed that government religious bans are bad? Does that really need independent justification, are we really disagreed on that? I thought that freedom from governmental religious imposition/persecution was one of the primary foundational concept of this nation? Was it not?

Well, if somehow the idea of religious liberty is now something I have to defend to Conservatives (what the **** world am I living in?) then I guess I can make the simple case quickly:


1: History is full of religious and ethnic bans and persecutions and exclusions. Once time has passed and we look back, we pretty much universally look back on those as bad ideas that made things far worse than they helped and usually resulted in horrific humanitarian travesties. That is to say that religious bans have a long and pretty consistent track record of being terrible ideas, that in and of itself should be cause for alarm and concern.

2: It targets a specific religious minority as being a threat, to be suspicious of, fearful of, and cautious around. Again, this has happened many times in history....when has it ever worked out? Surely you can acknowledge that painted a target of paranoia and distrust on the backs of millions of peaceful and prosperous Americans cannot possibly be "good" for out society.

3: It puts the government in the position of deciding good religions from bad religions. Surely it doesn't take a great political mind to know that this is not something governments should be doing and in fact goes against many of the foundational principles of the country.

4: And for all of these costs to our values and principles and to the peace and prosperity of our Islamic countrymen, these steps don't actually do jack squat to combat terrorism. NO terrorists in the US entered this country through refugee programs, and of the countries that Trump named, not a single Islamic terrorist incident in the US was carried out by someone from any of those countries. It's doesn't' take a genius to see there is something seriously wrong when none of the countries on his list were even the homeland of any of the terrorist's we've had attack so far.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'd rather YOU (and anyone else willing) answer the question; how does the ban HURT American security?
Click to expand...
'kay

Technically, this is not a ban on Muslims. Symbolically and in terms of intent, it's a ban on Muslims.

It outrages our allies in those nations, including governments that are actively fighting against Islamist insurgencies (Yemen) and Dahesh/ISIL (Iraq). Iraq's legislature is already planning retaliatory measures.

It gives unfriendly governments another excuse to vilify the US as a bunch of Muslim haters.

It gives our real enemies (e.g. Dahesh) more ammo to portray the US as "Crusaders."

It imposes enormous costs and uses of resources by chasing phantoms, as there is no indication whatsoever that this program would have prevented any attacks.

It was also done in possibly the most inept possible manner, possibly done that way on purpose.

It is trying to wreck the image at home and abroad that the US is a nation of immigrants, and that the US is the "good guy" who is willing to take responsibility for the consequences of its military entanglements.

Last but not least, it is merely an act of security theater, which tries to convince people that they will be safer, while making people feel more paranoid, more divided, less trustful of their neighbors because of their nation of origin, or status as refugees, or the color of their skin.

If it was merely ineffectual -- like taking your shoes off at the airport -- you wouldn't see airports full of lawyers and protesters.
 
chuckiechan said:
If the country needs more Muslims, tell me why.
Click to expand...
There's this crazy thing called "The Constitution of the United States" which explicitly bars the US from making laws that favor one religion over another.

I.e. no matter how much you personally dislike Muslims, based largely on what appears to be deep misunderstandings of the religion that has mutated into hatred.


I'm nervous about a culture whose religious practices "back home" involve killing people who aren't like them.
Click to expand...
Read a little history. Christians spent centuries slaughtering Muslims, Jews and other Christians. Sometimes this was due to religious differences (including the Protestant Reformation), often national identity, often for reasons a bit more trivial (a king insists he controlled a patch of land).


We don't need more ghettos. We have enough black and Mexican and white ghettos as it is without adding more Londonistans to our inventory of problem cities.
Click to expand...
News flash! Not all Muslims live in ghettos. Plus, a major reason why minorities get shoved into small areas is because of discrimination.

Read a little history, specifically redlining.


The Constitution was never meant to be a death warrant.
Click to expand...
News flash! The overwhelming majority of harm done to Americans is perpetrated by other Americans, specifically Christians. Should we therefore bar Christians from entering the US?
 
Visbek said:
'kay

Technically, this is not a ban on Muslims. Symbolically and in terms of intent, it's a ban on Muslims.

It outrages our allies in those nations, including governments that are actively fighting against Islamist insurgencies (Yemen) and Dahesh/ISIL (Iraq). Iraq's legislature is already planning retaliatory measures.

It gives unfriendly governments another excuse to vilify the US as a bunch of Muslim haters.

It gives our real enemies (e.g. Dahesh) more ammo to portray the US as "Crusaders."

It imposes enormous costs and uses of resources by chasing phantoms, as there is no indication whatsoever that this program would have prevented any attacks.

It was also done in possibly the most inept possible manner, possibly done that way on purpose.

It is trying to wreck the image at home and abroad that the US is a nation of immigrants, and that the US is the "good guy" who is willing to take responsibility for the consequences of its military entanglements.

Last but not least, it is merely an act of security theater, which tries to convince people that they will be safer, while making people feel more paranoid, more divided, less trustful of their neighbors because of their nation of origin, or status as refugees, or the color of their skin.

If it was merely ineffectual -- like taking your shoes off at the airport -- you wouldn't see airports full of lawyers and protesters.
Click to expand...

It's only symbolic to those trying to make it so.

This temporary hold is designed to allow the Federal Government an opportunity to create a more thoughtful approach to allowing travel between countries of concern.

During the 90 day hold, humanitarian issues, and all the rest, can be addressed, with a process put in place that places a greater emphasis on security, while not ignoring the US role in the world.

All the kabuki theater reaction is little more than response by President Trumps detractors to what they have been told, and how they have been instructed to react.
 
Koke said:
What exactly is the benefit to taking in economic migrants?
Click to expand...


So, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake on your part.

Economic Migrants are people who, to put it simply, travel for better work and opportunity.

People fleeing from war are not economic migrants.

People fleeing from famine, epidemics, or droughts are not economic migrants.

People fleeing from religious persecution are not economic migrants.

People fleeing from political persecution are not economic migrants.


Now you asked, "what is the benefit to taking in economic migrants" and in fact, there are many benefits, but that is a separate discussion. This discussion is over middle eastern refugees. Now I am sure you are aware that certain regions of the Middle East are currently a cauldron of war, religious persecution, power mad despots, and of course famine and starvation brought on by all of that chaos. This is true, this is not a fiction. Aleppo is probably the city that has most recently been in the public consciousness that was destroyed, but it is far from the only one. And we are not talking about like a bombing or a small gun fight on the edge of town. We are talking about giant metropolises with millions of residents bombed into rubble.

Now, if your city is bombed to rubble, if your province is taken over by a warlord, if people of your religion are being executed in the streets, if people with your political views are being executed in the streets, if you and your family are starving due to the famine brought on by all that violence, if any of that is true....then you are NOT an economic migrant.

I say all of this because a lot of people here in the west (I am not sure if this is what you were doing or not, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) like to pretend all of these middle eastern refugees, or at least the majority of them, are just coming over here to take our jobs, and in fact things back home are perfectly tolerable and they should stay there. Because by casting the refugees as economic migrants, your can equate their reason for coming here to simple material gain, and therefore feel less morally conflicted about refusing them.

Now I challenge you, and anyone else calling them economic migrants for that matter, to undertake the very unpleasant task of watching footage of these cities in the aftermath of a siege, watching footage of the mass graves of executed civilians, listen to the stories of these people and the conditions they fled from, I challenge you to watch that, and ask yourself if those are really just Economic Migrants, or if you are a person for whom empathy is not a strength, ask yourself how you would feel if that was your home, your world, your life, and when you fled from that, if you were met at the border by people calling you a job thief and that you should take your family and go back.

How would you feel?
 
No clue. Maybe at the point where such a ban happens we can delve a bit more deeper into it. But right now, since I don't see it as a hypothetical that's likely to occur, I don't see a huge reason to really delve into it.
 
JustLost said:
The countries in the ban are Muslims. We going to play sill word games. With alterative facts
Click to expand...

You are the one with "alternative facts" by stating that this is something that it is not.

First, countries cannot be a religion.

Second, while those countries may be predominantly muslim, they are not 100% muslim.

Thirdly, even if they were completely muslim, still calling this a "muslim ban" would be inaccurate. A muslim ban would suggest a ban upon all muslims, which this would not be doing.

Fourthly, to my understanding part of the reason these countries were selected and were on the list used to make their selection was specifically because the ability to properly vet them is SIGNIFICANTLY hindered because the local governments, for a variety of reasons, are woefully unable to assist with providing any kind of the necessary records and information needed to do the vetting. So saying "more vetting" in such an instance is rather disingenuous, because you can't do "more" of something that you already are unable to properly do.
 
Koke said:
I'm sure the Christian nations in the Middle East would agree with you... if they still existed, that is.
Click to expand...

The Crusader states were born by the sword and died by the sword. I don't feel any sympathy for them.
 
Visbek said:
Technically, this is not a ban on Muslims. Symbolically and in terms of intent, it's a ban on Muslims.
Click to expand...

Damn, we can make claims that things are literally and factually something based on ones opinion of what they symbolically represent and ones opinion of what the persons intent was? Well hot damn, where was this notion at when people were yelling and screaming about the audacity of people to call some of the immigration actions Obama took "amnesty" or the attempts to ban the sale of "assault weapons" as an attempt to "Ban guns".

Know what else is giving unfriendly governments another excuse to vilify the US as a bunch of muslim haters? A bunch of people in this country screaming to high heaven, erroneously and dishonestly, that this is a "muslim ban".
 
Goshin said:
1. It is not a ban on Muslims. It is a ban on immigration from certain countries believed to pose a security risk.


2. Not letting potential terrorists in might have such salutary effects as preventing some acts of terrorism.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that idea is that people are more and more self radicalizing via the Internet. The idea that "if person 1, from country A, can't come here there will be no terrorism" is rather lacking
 
jimithyashford said:
So, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake on your part.

Economic Migrants are people who, to put it simply, travel for better work and opportunity.

People fleeing from war are not economic migrants.

People fleeing from famine, epidemics, or droughts are not economic migrants.

People fleeing from religious persecution are not economic migrants.

People fleeing from political persecution are not economic migrants.


Now you asked, "what is the benefit to taking in economic migrants" and in fact, there are many benefits, but that is a separate discussion. This discussion is over middle eastern refugees. Now I am sure you are aware that certain regions of the Middle East are currently a cauldron of war, religious persecution, power mad despots, and of course famine and starvation brought on by all of that chaos. This is true, this is not a fiction. Aleppo is probably the city that has most recently been in the public consciousness that was destroyed, but it is far from the only one. And we are not talking about like a bombing or a small gun fight on the edge of town. We are talking about giant metropolises with millions of residents bombed into rubble.

Now, if your city is bombed to rubble, if your province is taken over by a warlord, if people of your religion are being executed in the streets, if people with your political views are being executed in the streets, if you and your family are starving due to the famine brought on by all that violence, if any of that is true....then you are NOT an economic migrant.

I say all of this because a lot of people here in the west (I am not sure if this is what you were doing or not, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) like to pretend all of these middle eastern refugees, or at least the majority of them, are just coming over here to take our jobs, and in fact things back home are perfectly tolerable and they should stay there. Because by casting the refugees as economic migrants, your can equate their reason for coming here to simple material gain, and therefore feel less morally conflicted about refusing them.

Now I challenge you, and anyone else calling them economic migrants for that matter, to undertake the very unpleasant task of watching footage of these cities in the aftermath of a siege, watching footage of the mass graves of executed civilians, listen to the stories of these people and the conditions they fled from, I challenge you to watch that, and ask yourself if those are really just Economic Migrants, or if you are a person for whom empathy is not a strength, ask yourself how you would feel if that was your home, your world, your life, and when you fled from that, if you were met at the border by people calling you a job thief and that you should take your family and go back.

How would you feel?
Click to expand...

It is much cheaper to resettle ME migrants in the ME than it is in Europe or the US. It is more convenient (for both parties) to settle them in places where cultures are familiar. Part of the reason these people are displaced is because of politicians (Bush/Obama/Hillary) who have bombed the hell out of the ME and displaced the population.

The actions of our politicians, however, are not the actions of the people. America does not have the moral obligation to let in migrants en mass, especially the American citizen. It is not moral to make people pay taxes for people they have nothing to do with and no moral obligation to help. In fact, it is immoral to do so.

Now, if you specifically choose to invest in your conscious, you are free to do so by any means. Donate, go on peacekeeping missions, send letters, I don't care do what you want. I'm interested in feelings or emotional anecdote. At the end of the day it is immoral to forcibly tax people on beliefs they don't hold.

I truly do feel for the situation which is why I didn't vote for warhawk piece-of-garbage politicians. Gadaffi himself warned us that if we decapitated his government, it would end in a crisis of displaced migrants. Now seeing as you tag says "liberal" I'm assuming you voted Obama and Hillary. Perhaps you should invest more time in understanding why these people are actually displaced and what better options there are to be taken rather than attempting (and failing) to forcibly assimilate a third world population into a advanced western society.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Crusader states were born by the sword and died by the sword. I don't feel any sympathy for them.
Click to expand...

Do you apply that logic to other religions responsible for war and violence?
 
JustLost said:
All a temp Muslim ban does, is to say to every day

Muslims. The US does like you and does not want you here.

This is bigotry.

Even the GOP US senate leader can’t see the worth

in Trump’s temp Muslim ban.

Saying you are go to increase vetting would be more of a deterrent.
Click to expand...

There is no ban on Muslims. For GOD's SAKE, people!!
 
JustLost said:
All a temp Muslim ban does, is to say to every day

Muslims. The US does like you and does not want you here.

This is bigotry.

Even the GOP US senate leader can’t see the worth

in Trump’s temp Muslim ban.

Saying you are go to increase vetting would be more of a deterrent.
Click to expand...

I just don't see what this temporary ban on these 7 ME countries will do for us.

It's not going to stop terrorism or anything. And if Trump's reason for doing this is because he's trying to prevent Islamic terrorism, then why didn't he ban Saudi Arabia?
 
Koke said:
Do you apply that logic to other religions responsible for war and violence?
Click to expand...

Yes, I apply that logic to all "countries" which were carved out of another country by force of arms only to later be overcome and reannexed to the original owners.
 
Koke said:
It is much cheaper to resettle ME migrants in the ME than it is in Europe or the US. It is more convenient (for both parties) to settle them in places where cultures are familiar. Part of the reason these people are displaced is because of politicians (Bush/Obama/Hillary) who have bombed the hell out of the ME and displaced the population.

The actions of our politicians, however, are not the actions of the people. America does not have the moral obligation to let in migrants en mass, especially the American citizen. It is not moral to make people pay taxes for people they have nothing to do with and no moral obligation to help. In fact, it is immoral to do so.

Now, if you specifically choose to invest in your conscious, you are free to do so by any means. Donate, go on peacekeeping missions, send letters, I don't care do what you want. I'm interested in feelings or emotional anecdote. At the end of the day it is immoral to forcibly tax people on beliefs they don't hold.

I truly do feel for the situation which is why I didn't vote for warhawk piece-of-garbage politicians. Gadaffi himself warned us that if we decapitated his government, it would end in a crisis of displaced migrants. Now seeing as you tag says "liberal" I'm assuming you voted Obama and Hillary. Perhaps you should invest more time in understanding why these people are actually displaced and what better options there are to be taken rather than attempting (and failing) to forcibly assimilate a third world population into a advanced western society.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, and those are interesting points that are worthy of discussion, but I want to settle this Economic Migrant issue.

Are you conceding that the majority of these people are not "Economic Migrants" and are, in fact, refugees seeking asylum from horrific circumstances that any sane rational human being would reasonably be feeling from?
 
Tigerace117 said:
The only problem with that idea is that people are more and more self radicalizing via the Internet. The idea that "if person 1, from country A, can't come here there will be no terrorism" is rather lacking
Click to expand...



Didn't say there would be no terrorism. Said it would reduce the risk, and it will. We have no motive in enlightened self-interest to allow it and increase our risks.
 
jimithyashford said:
That's all well and good, and those are interesting points that are worthy of discussion, but I want to settle this Economic Migrant issue.

Are you conceding that the majority of these people are not "Economic Migrants" and are, in fact, refugees seeking asylum from horrific circumstances that any sane rational human being would reasonably be feeling from?
Click to expand...

No. If they were normal migrants as you describe, they would stop in southern or eastern Europe as they should. Instead of stopping in these countries, they keep moving in to countries like Sweden and Germany, both of which who have massive welfare states and more solid economies.

Not all of eastern Europe is unfriendly to migrants, either. I understand Poland and Hungary are examples of places who are rejecting the idea of these migrants but not all.

So I am not claiming they are migrating for the sole purpose of economics. But it is false to say they don't consider the welfare states of certain countries when fleeing.
 
Koke said:
No. If they were normal migrants as you describe, they would stop in southern or eastern Europe as they should. Instead of stopping in these countries, they keep moving in to countries like Sweden and Germany, both of which who have massive welfare states and more solid economies.

Not all of eastern Europe is unfriendly to migrants, either. I understand Poland and Hungary are examples of places who are rejecting the idea of these migrants but not all.

So I am not claiming they are migrating for the sole purpose of economics. But it is false to say they don't consider the welfare states of certain countries when fleeing.
Click to expand...

So yes, if you are fleeing your ruined homeland to take up residence elsewhere, you would rather flee to a prosperous and safe nation than not, that is also just extremely basic "no duh" human motivation. In what conceivable way does that de-legitimize their plight?

And also, are you saying that if you are fleeing from perdition as a refugee, and at any point in the process of fleeing from war and desperation, you take the prosperity of the nation you would like to flee to into account, that you are now no longer a refugee, you are now simply an economic migrant?

And again, if you are calling them an economic migrant solely because you must consider fitting them into your economic as a sanctuary nation, then I have no problem. If you are calling them economic migrants so that you may then be dismissive of their plight and turn your nose up at them, then we have issue as you are using labels as weapons to forbid unwanted minorities and I find that, personally, rather repulsive, but agian, perhaps that is not what you are doing, I am trying to sus that out.
 
jimithyashford said:
So yes, if you are fleeing your ruined homeland to take up residence elsewhere, you would rather flee to a prosperous and safe nation than not, that is also just extremely basic "no duh" human motivation. In what conceivable way does that de-legitimize their plight?

And also, are you saying that if you are fleeing from perdition as a refugee, and at any point in the process of fleeing from war and desperation, you take the prosperity of the nation you would like to flee to into account, that you are now no longer a refugee, you are now simply an economic migrant?

And again, if you are calling them an economic migrant solely because you must consider fitting them into your economic as a sanctuary nation, then I have no problem. If you are calling them economic migrants so that you may then be dismissive of their plight and turn your nose up at them, then we have issue as you are using labels as weapons to forbid unwanted minorities and I find that, personally, rather repulsive, but agian, perhaps that is not what you are doing, I am trying to sus that out.
Click to expand...

If I were a refugee, any place that wasn't getting shelled day and night would be an improvement. Whether that refuge be in the ME, Europe, or US... I wouldn't care.

Yes, if you are fleeing to a country for it's economic benefits as opposed to fleeing to a different country (with less economic benefits) than you are now an economic migrant first before you are fleeing from war. If you are fleeing from war, any place where there is not war would be a VAST improvement to your former situation.

I'm not being dismissive of their plight. I well recognize their problems which is why I propose we resettle them in other areas. (Not only would this be cheaper, but we could settle many more people!).

I'm also of the opinion that not all immigration is positive. There are certain cultures and peoples which are diametrically opposed to our values and thus, would not be wise to import in large numbers. Small amounts every generation and allow a lot of time (it takes a lot) for assimilation. This is how the US has done it forever until recently.
 
Koke said:
If I were a refugee, any place that wasn't getting shelled day and night would be an improvement. Whether that refuge be in the ME, Europe, or US... I wouldn't care.

Yes, if you are fleeing to a country for it's economic benefits as opposed to fleeing to a different country (with less economic benefits) than you are now an economic migrant first before you are fleeing from war. If you are fleeing from war, any place where there is not war would be a VAST improvement to your former situation.

I'm not being dismissive of their plight. I well recognize their problems which is why I propose we resettle them in other areas. (Not only would this be cheaper, but we could settle many more people!).

I'm also of the opinion that not all immigration is positive. There are certain cultures and peoples which are diametrically opposed to our values and thus, would not be wise to import in large numbers. Small amounts every generation and allow a lot of time (it takes a lot) for assimilation. This is how the US has done it forever until recently.
Click to expand...

So, you are fleeing from war....and you have an option of several host nations to flee to, the only way to remain a "true" refugee in your mind is to pick the geographically closest? Anyone who picks any other the other nations are not true refugees just economic migrants?


I mean put yourself in that situation. You are fleeing from war, and the sanctuary nations that are willing to take you are England, Haiti, Venezuela, or Kazakhstan....If you decide to go for England you are now not really a refugee you are not just an economic migrant? I mean Haiti and Venezuela are closer, you should go there, anything else is just job hunting.

Is that really the way you view it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom