Do you support Trump's temporary Muslim ban

[Redban]

Of all the gun attacks that killed more than 10 people in the US - Muslims now make 28.4 percent of the total, despite being about 2 percent of the total population in the US.

This is rather exceptional because as of 2009, that number was zero.

Do you have a source for this statistic?

[Sir Mohamed]

No, it’s laughable and impracticable.

[SWE]

No (not sympathetic to ISIS)

[wolfsblood07]

It's bigoted and asinine. One should treat immigrant applicants on an individual basis, not mindlessly affix a scarlet letter to them, because they are part of some group that some dislike or fear.

That would be great if we could actually weed out terrorists, but it's not working.   Trump is right, we need to shut it down at least temporarily.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Again, how would this help in the actual issue at hand (namely second generation lone wolves)? Wouldn't this effectively obliterate all of America's Muslim allies in MeNA and further drive pro-american Muslims populations (in places like the Balkans and West Africa) against America?

[SillyAmerican]

Yes and no. I think that most countries in the middle east should be banned from immigration. That being said, countries like Albania , Bosnia and turkey aren't that much of a threat and people can be identified. So only in countries where terrorism and sharia law is prevalent (aka. most of North Africa and the Middle East)

Exactly right. This should not be a ban on Muslim immigrants, this should be a temporary shutdown of immigration from specific problematic countries in northern africa and the middle east, at least until such time as we can get our immigration house in order and assure citizens that the vetting process used on those wishing entry is solid. The sole function of the federal government, as spelled out in the US Constitution, is the common defense of the United States, which is to say the protection of we American citizens. Sorry, but the federal government has no obligation whatsoever to those wishing to enter the country. None. Zipo. Nada.

Again, how would this help in the actual issue at hand (namely second generation lone wolves)? Wouldn't this effectively obliterate all of America's Muslim allies in MeNA and further drive pro-american Muslims populations (in places like the Balkans and West Africa) against America?

To which "Muslim allies" are you referring?

In answer to your question, if there is no reasonable path for assimilation, there should be no entry. In the case of the Orlando shooter, my understanding is that his father was known to be a supporter of the Taliban. He was let into the country (for reasons which escape me), only to have his son later murder dozens of people. Do you not understand that it would have been better for us not to have allowed this person entry?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I dunno, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Oman, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Guinea etc. Some of them have nasty regimes (I didn't include the nastiest allies likr The Ally That Has No Business Bring An Ally And Is Blatantly The Worst Thing Ever) or occasionally dick around but one shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. A lot of these  populations in opinion polls are the most pro-US in the world - (there's a reason I mentioned places like West Africa and the Balkans). The Islam they follow is far from the poison Salafi garbage that Saudi Arabia has ejaculated all over the region.

Basically foreign policy is amoral. If the State Dept really thought trumpian policies were useful they would do them, because NEWSFLASH political correctness is not a thing they care about.

Yes, well that the 80's innit? Back then the Muslims were the glorious anticommie traditionalists. Islamic terrorism was basically considered fringe and not relevant to the geopolitical cold war wankery.

[SillyAmerican]

I dunno, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Oman, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Guinea etc. Some of them have nasty regimes (I didn't include the nastiest allies likr The Ally That Has No Business Bring An Ally And Is Blatantly The Worst Thing Ever) or occasionally dick around but one shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. A lot of these  populations in opinion polls are the most pro-US in the world - (there's a reason I mentioned places like West Africa and the Balkans). The Islam they follow is far from the poison Salafi garbage that Saudi Arabia has ejaculated all over the region.

Basically foreign policy is amoral. If the State Dept really thought trumpian policies were useful they would do them, because NEWSFLASH political correctness is not a thing they care about.

Yes, well that the 80's innit? Back then the Muslims were the glorious anticommie traditionalists. Islamic terrorism was basically considered fringe and not relevant to the geopolitical cold war wankery.

You really want the United States to base its immigration policy vis-a-vis places like Syria, Libya, and Iraq on what people in Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Tunisia, Senegal, Oman, Kyrgyzstan, or Guinea think? I can understand your concern over places like Turkey, Jordan, Malaysia, or Indonesia, but setting policy based on some of the other countries you mention is simply the tail wagging the dog, at least in my opinion.

That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that we do things which strengthen our relationship with those who have demonstrated themselves to be true friends. The foreign policy of any country is based on the perceived self interests of that country, and in this case, what I'm saying is that these days, it would be in the best interest of the United States to approach immigration policies with great care when it involves regions of the world in which radical Islam has shown itself to be a problem.

[ProudModerate2]

Yes and no. I think that most countries in the middle east should be banned from immigration. That being said, countries like Albania , Bosnia and turkey aren't that much of a threat and people can be identified. So only in countries where terrorism and sharia law is prevalent (aka. most of North Africa and the Middle East)

Exactly right. This should not be a ban on Muslim immigrants, this should be a temporary shutdown of immigration from specific problematic countries in northern africa and the middle east, at least until such time as we can get our immigration house in order and assure citizens that the vetting process used on those wishing entry is solid. The sole function of the federal government, as spelled out in the US Constitution, is the common defense of the United States, which is to say the protection of we American citizens. Sorry, but the federal government has no obligation whatsoever to those wishing to enter the country. None. Zipo. Nada.

trump fools some individuals again. The thing with trump is that he can say something so "simple" and his message reaches so many. They lap-it-up like there is no tomorrow.
This whole "temporary ban" nonsense is what I am referring to.
I'm certain that the INS and those in charge of vetting immigrants from "questionable" countries is solid NOW/TODAY. This whole "getting our immigration house in order" is hogwash, and trump seems to be fooling some people with this statement.
The truth of the matter is that there will always be a few bad apples who somehow get through the vetting process system. Makes no difference if Obama or trump is president, there will always be someone that gets in who has intentions on doing us wrong .... ALWAYS.

[President Johnson]

No, I doubt it would be effective.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I support not only that but a moratorium on all immigration.  Perhaps 50 years or more.

Surely there are less inflammatory was to destroy the economy.

[IceSpear]

No (sane)

[5280]

No and yes. Why not have a temporary ban on all immigration?

[Santander]

No and yes. Why not have a temporary ban on all immigration?

What exactly would that accomplish?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I dunno, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Oman, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Guinea etc. Some of them have nasty regimes (I didn't include the nastiest allies likr The Ally That Has No Business Bring An Ally And Is Blatantly The Worst Thing Ever) or occasionally dick around but one shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. A lot of these  populations in opinion polls are the most pro-US in the world - (there's a reason I mentioned places like West Africa and the Balkans). The Islam they follow is far from the poison Salafi garbage that Saudi Arabia has ejaculated all over the region.

Basically foreign policy is amoral. If the State Dept really thought trumpian policies were useful they would do them, because NEWSFLASH political correctness is not a thing they care about.

Yes, well that the 80's innit? Back then the Muslims were the glorious anticommie traditionalists. Islamic terrorism was basically considered fringe and not relevant to the geopolitical cold war wankery.

You really want the United States to base its immigration policy vis-a-vis places like Syria, Libya, and Iraq on what people in Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Tunisia, Senegal, Oman, Kyrgyzstan, or Guinea think? I can understand your concern over places like Turkey, Jordan, Malaysia, or Indonesia, but setting policy based on some of the other countries you mention is simply the tail wagging the dog, at least in my opinion.

That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that we do things which strengthen our relationship with those who have demonstrated themselves to be true friends. The foreign policy of any country is based on the perceived self interests of that country, and in this case, what I'm saying is that these days, it would be in the best interest of the United States to approach immigration policies with great care when it involves regions of the world in which radical Islam has shown itself to be a problem.

It's useful to have a big crowd of small countries on your side - it's one of the reasons the us is as powerful as it is. These countries bring stability, which brings investment into the areas. Any instability in the region will be exploited by ISIS and other such vermin.

The US singling out Muslims entering would lose an awful lot of foreign capital for very little conceivable gain. It would be effectively seen as a middle finger to those mulims who have -till now - been pro-american. It would be nothing but a moral victory for jihadists who despise the idea that their non Salafi religious brethren can live alongside the kafir.

If you really want an effective way to combat extremism, I'd start with hate speech laws and also put pressure on Gulf funding. So much of Islam's issues stem from those noxious states polluting there garbage everywhere.

[Seriously?]

No because I'm not a HP.

While I'm agnostic and I believe all organized religions are oppressive tools of mind control, people should (and do) have the constitutional right to practice whatever religion/faith/spirituality they choose in our country. Trump's draconian policy to ban Muslims is just on its face unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of..."

Again, how can most Republicans/conservatives claim to be strict constructionists and adherents to the Constitution when they so blatantly ignore every amendment in the document except for Two Corinthians, I mean, the Second Amendment.

What's even sadder is that a majority of Republicans support Trump's Muslim ban.

The constitution does not apply to non-citizens that are not on U.S. soil. My reading of it would give Trump/Congress, etc., the right to exclude whomever they want to under our immigration laws and policies.

But then again, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

[ag]

No, I doubt it would be effective.

Your grandpa would be proud of you. He also hated those migrant Jewish bolshevists.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes (LGBT ally, not a bigot etc.)

The obsession with Trump continues.

The Democrats on here need to choose, do they support the LGBT community or the Muslims who want to murder them because the Koran says so.

The people who say that trumps Muslim ban is pro-LGBT always seem to be straight and cis-gendered(and probably don't know what the latter term means).

No and yes. Why not have a temporary ban on all immigration?

What is with Arizona conservatives and being rabidly anti-immigrant.

[LLR]

No and yes. Why not have a temporary ban on all immigration?

What is with Arizona conservatives and being rabidly anti-immigrant.

Arpaio and Brewer must've been effective

[Phony Moderate]

No (someone who actually wants to tackle radical Islam effectively)

[Gass3268]

No

[Suburbia]

No. It never will happen, not in a million years. However, Islam needs a Reformation.

[ElectionsGuy]

No (sane)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Again, how would this help in the actual issue at hand (namely second generation lone wolves)? Wouldn't this effectively obliterate all of America's Muslim allies in MeNA and further drive pro-american Muslims populations (in places like the Balkans and West Africa) against America?

maybe, but it'd make us feel safer for a little while.

[Hammy]

Again, how would this help in the actual issue at hand (namely second generation lone wolves)? Wouldn't this effectively obliterate all of America's Muslim allies in MeNA and further drive pro-american Muslims populations (in places like the Balkans and West Africa) against America?

maybe, but it'd make us feel safer for a little while.

I think this is the problem with these sorts of things though--they make us 'feel' safe, but in reality make us less safe by stirring more hate and playing into the hands of people like ISIS who want there to be an international cultural war, not to mention putting anyone overseas that's sympathetic to the US at much greater risk.