The Instigator
Patriotic_Potato49
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The executive travel ban, should it stay or go?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Capitalistslave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,138 times Debate No: 99908
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Patriotic_Potato49

Pro

I think the travel ban should stay in place. The constitution states in article 2 that the president has the power to restrict the flow of immigration. This means Trumps travel ban constitutional. It also has the interest of the U.S and its saftey in mind.
Capitalistslave

Con

Article 2 of the constitution does not specify that the president has the power to restrict the flow of immigration. You can read article 2 here[1] and you will see immigration is not mentioned in it whatsoever. This may have just been a mistake by my opponent. What does allow the president the right to restrict immigration is public law 414 signed by congress in 1952, which can be read here[2]. It says on page 188: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of alients into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."[2].

I don't know of a supreme court case that ruled this law as constitutional or unconstitutional or if it was ever challenged. This law may or may not be unconstitutional then. Nonetheless, I don't think it matters if it is or not. What matters is if it really makes sense for the president to institute this travel ban and if it's moral. We should always to what is the right thing to do, whether or not it is unconstitutional.

Does it make sense to ban people from seeking refuge in the United States when they almost never actually commit acts of terror? For example, there has never been a terrorist attack from a refugee from Syria[3], yet Trump banned them indefinitely. Many of the other countries he banned also have never done a terrorist attack in many years. In fact, terrorist attacks are so rare, you're more likely to die by diabetes, lightning, heart disease, cancer, etc[4]. Media just over-hypes terrorist attacks, it makes it seem like they happen a lot more than they do.

Is it important we are careful with whom we accept into this country? Certainly, but I don't see why we can't change the rules on vetting without placing a ban.

So, is it really justified to ban these people from entering the country when they almost never harm us? They are trying to escape a terrible situation, where their rights are violated in Syria and other countries. Why should we deny them being able to escape this, to have a better life, just because we irrationally fear that they will commit acts of terror? And yes, it is an irrational fear. Again, point to me instances where a refugee has ever harmed another American. You probably can't because it almost never happens.


Sources:
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] https://www.gpo.gov...
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com...
[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca...
Debate Round No. 1
Patriotic_Potato49

Pro

I understand your point and how I got the law mixed up. However, there have been reported instances in Europe of radicalized Muslims blending in and shooting up the public. The ban is getting imposed so we may have a better screening process.

Instances such as these (https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...) happen so often that the media has just stopped reporting them. However, Trump has noticed them and is taking an initiative to keep the country safe. I recently just heard about one of Obama's plans to take in refuges right under our noses.

The Muslim religion is the second largest religion in the world. 5 percent of them or 75 million Muslims are reported to be Radical or "Jihadists" (https://sites.google.com...). That is a lot of people if you ask me. I we don't have proper screening of these Muslims or some sort of defense. We will be vulnerable to attack because we were to focused on globalism

Just remember before you get triggered, the ban is only temporary and is made to put America first. The orange man knows what he is doing.
Capitalistslave

Con

I thank my opponent for keeping this debate civil.


Now, I understand my opponent is worried about radical Islam, as there is much happening in Europe from it. However, I think there is a difference between Europe's policy of accepting refugees and our policy. They must be doing something wrong since they end up having terror attacks pretty often, as my opponent pointed out. We must already be doing something right with the vetting that is already in place if we are not getting any refugees who cause violence or commit acts of terror.

Again, I challenge my opponent to show examples of refugees in the US who have committed acts of terror, or even an act of violence.

Thus, since this doesn't seem to be a problem for the United States, why is the ban necessary? If we were having terror attacks right and left due to us letting in just anyone as a refugee from those countries, then I would agree that we might need a temporary ban and that we need to fix our vetting system.

The fact of the matter is, refugees are not a harm to the United States, so I don't see any reason why we need to ban them from coming.


Also, I would like to point out that the most radical Islamists, Wahhabists, are most prevalent in the country Trump did NOT ban: Saudi Arabia. For a source on Wahhabism being the dominant sect in Saudi Arabia, see this [5]

So, if this ban was really trying to keep us safe, why is the country with the most radical Muslims oddly left off of the list? In my opinion, Trump banned most of the wrong countries, and didn't ban the ones that really mattered.

Source
[5] http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Patriotic_Potato49

Pro

The terrorist attacks are not required to be in the U.S in order for it to be a concern. I call it "being proactive". Our screening process can't possibly tell the intent of the person coming into the U.S. They can simply lie.

If we allow them to come to the U.S, they could do whatever they want. They don't even need to carry out the attacks, they can recruit more Radicals to fight us. When you see events such as the Boston bombing or all of the shootings such as the Orlando nightclub shooting (http://www.cnn.com...). This man pledges his allegiance to ISIS and shot up a gay nightclub. Attacks like these on U.S soil can not be tolerated.

We don't know who is a radical and who is not. I know that my opponent will use that phrase against me in the next submitted argument, but the point still stands. The liberals have not provided a legitimate way to combat terrorism and have used the word racist so much that it has lost its value.

The travel ban may not be the best way, but it is the only thing we have as of now. If anyone can present a better idea than it, I would listen.
Capitalistslave

Con

I would like to stress again, that we already have a vetting process in place, and I again say, our vetting must be better than Europe's since we are not having any refugees coming to attack us. If you want to see the vetting process we currently have, it is here[6]. According to that source, we've constantly changed our vetting process and have gotten more strict over time already. I don't see why a ban is necessary, perhaps we just need to alter our vetting system, but I would argue we don't even need to do that since we don't have problems from the refugees who come here.

Now, I'll address some quotes by my opponent, and the quotes will be italicized:

They don't even need to carry out the attacks, they can recruit more Radicals to fight us.
But is there any evidence the refugees do this? I have never heard of a refugee doing this. As you pointed out, only 5% of Muslims are radicalized, and since we already have a vetting system in place, the percentage of refugees who would be radical would be even lower, maybe close to 0.

When you see events such as the Boston bombing or all of the shootings such as the Orlando nightclub shooting... This man pledges his allegiance to ISIS and shot up a gay nightclub. Attacks like these on U.S soil can not be tolerated.
Again, both of these cases were from people who had lived in the United States for pretty much all of their life and were US citizens. Refugees had nothing to do with either.

We don't know who is a radical and who is not.
But we seem to have a good vetting system that separates the radicals from the non-radicals, otherwise we would have been having radicals here doing or promoting acts of violence.


Source:
[6] http://www.heritage.org...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
Ah, I didn't realize this debate didn't require RFD until now. That means pretty much everyone is just going to vote for who they agree with. I can already tell Mharman did that considering his profile says he is conservative and supports Donald Trump.

This is one reason I prefer debates with RFD... otherwise you get people who will vote just because they agree with someone over someone else, or they'll vote just to counter-act another voter, which I've seen a certain user do that all the time before.

I wish people would vote with their brains rather than vote based on who they agree with. Look at the debate objectively. Who do you objectively think brought up better points?

Mharman: try to look at this debate objectively: who do you honestly think brought up better points? Do you really think it's them or do you think some bias got involved in your vote?
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
Pretty good debate.
Posted by DrCereal 11 months ago
DrCereal
Pro has terrible conduct.
Posted by ILikePie5 11 months ago
ILikePie5
I'm willing to debate the Aff side of the travel ban.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
Patriotic_Potato49CapitalistslaveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by KnightOfDarkness 11 months ago
KnightOfDarkness
Patriotic_Potato49CapitalistslaveTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con because he never indicated any insults. Pro indicated insults towards their opponent by saying things like "Just remember before you get triggered..." among a couple of other things. Con gets arguments: they brought up how refugees almost never commit acts of terror or violence, while pro seemed to have ignored this. Pro tried arguing that other countries are having problems, but con pointed out that it's not the same thing happening in America and we should have different policies than them. Pro also brought up unrelated points, such as the boston bombing, which have nothing to do with refugees. Con stayed on topic and pointed to what refugees are actually doing or not doing, and it makes logical sense we should base our policy for refugees based off of what the refugees are doing.
Vote Placed by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
Patriotic_Potato49CapitalistslaveTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30